Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time upon Thursday next.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of the Bill, as amended, read.

Bill to be considered upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Water Cannon

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State for Defence what authority he has given to bring into Great Britain water-cannon to quell civil commotion and disturbances; where such cannon are to be used; what regulatory instructions he has given for their use; and whether he will make a statement concerning water-cannon.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I am not aware of any proposal to introduce water

cannon into Great Britain. The procurement of water cannon for use in Northern Ireland has been authorised in order to extend the range of riot-control devices available to the security forces in the Province.

Sir G. Nabarro: What is the constitutional difference between employing water cannon for the purpose of quelling civil disorder and disturbance in Northern Ireland and refusing to equip the Metropolitan Police in London with these admirable weapons, for quelling civil disturbance or disorderly persons in Grosvenor Square, for example?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not think there is any constitutional difference. Whether or not water cannon should be employed in Great Britain will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the answer to my hon. Friend's question that blood is thicker than water?

Army Headquarters (Manpower and Paper)

Mr. Merlyn Rees: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will institute an inquiry into the use of manpower and paper at Army headquarters, in the light of the evidence supplied to him by the hon. Member for Leeds, South.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman has not, in fact, supplied me with any evidence, but the matters he has in mind are kept constantly under review. Wide-ranging studies are already in progress and I see no need for a further inquiry at present.

Mr. Rees: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in my letter I referred to two letters, one to The Times and one to the Sunday Telegraph, the first by a battalion colonel of the Scots Guards and the other by an administrative corporal at headquarters, referring to a wastage of manpower and to too much paper at Army headquarters? What steps should such people take to get this matter dealt with, other than by jeopardising their careers by writing to the Press? Surely there should be an investigation?

Mr. Gilmour: I do not regard letters that I have read in the Press three months ago as evidence supplied to me by the


hon. Gentleman. In fact, there have been studies in progress for some time in the Ministry under the previous Government. If the allegations that the hon. Gentleman talks about were in fact true, this would be a serious criticism of the previous Administration.

Royal Navy Detention Quarters (Unco-operative Prisoners)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the techniques now used in Royal Navy detention quarters to deal with unco-operative prisoners.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): Prisoners who refuse to comply with the routine of the establishment are liable to be given periods of between three and 14 days close confinement. They are given every opportunity to retract, when the punishment is then immediately rescinded.

Mr. Judd: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that, in view of the public concern which exists about this establishment, ranging from the predicament of boy entrants working their tickets for exit from the Navy to the use of drugs to cope with unco-operative prisoners, and taking into account the significant changes in the administration of the centre, it would be helpful if he would take an early opportunity to make a full statement about the real purpose of the centre and the way in which it is administered?

Mr. Kirk: I have visited the centre recently, as has the hon. Gentleman, and he knows of the particular problem and that it must not be made more comfortable than some of the smaller ships at sea. I have in mind one or two changes which I should like to see implemented there. But on the question of drugs, for example, it is very rare that we use drugs on unco-operative prisoners. It has happened on only three occasions in the last four-and-a-half years, to restrain violent prisoners.

Royal Naval Dockyards

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future organisational structure of the Royal Naval Dockyards.

Mr. Kirk: I have recently agreed a number of changes to improve the future organisation of the Royal dockyards. At headquarters the Dockyard Department's control of their personnel and financial resources has been strengthened. In the individual dockyards we are planning to give greater authority to general managers, expand the use of the technique of project management and make increased use of computers for production control and material management. We are also adapting the accounting system to provide a better yardstick of performance in financial terms.

Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that in the cause of effectiveness, efficiency and morale in the dockyards, he should take the earliest possible opportunity to make a full statement about the present Government's commitment to the full remodernisation programme of the dockyards, and also to clear up the issues arising from the current commentary about the possibility of the dockyards being hived off to a separate administration?

Mr. Kirk: We are going ahead with the modernisation programme. As to hiving off, we are considering the whole question of the operation of the Royal dockyards, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the very nature of the dockyards and the need for a close association with the Fleet makes this a very difficult question indeed.

Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the very vague answer that I received yesterday about the dockyards, may I express the hope that my hon. Friend will be in a position to make a more definite statement in the near future, because it is causing great anxiety? May I ask whether H.M.S. "Eagle" is going to be repaired in the Devonport Dockyard?

Mr. Kirk: In reply to the first part of that supplementary, I hope my hon. Friend will feel that I have been a little more specific today. As to the second part, H.M.S. "Eagle" has been repaired and has left Devonport Dockyard.

Mr. John Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to implement the intention of the last Administration in the setting up of a dockyard board under Ministerial chairmanship, with outside


members, to improve the administration of the dockyards and possibly with a view at some later date to more independence of the docks from existing Civil Service machinery?

Mr. Kirk: Yes. I shall be setting up the board and shall be taking the chair myself.

Armed Forces (Pay)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of State for Defence what arrangements have now been made to pay members of the armed forces by cheque rather than in cash; and what plans he has for developing the system of payment by cheque now that the increased rates of pay lead to large holdings of cash having to be maintained for pay purposes.

Mr. Kirk: Army and R.A.F. officers are paid direct into their bank accounts and soldiers and airmen are actively encouraged to opt for this form of payment. Similar facilities are planned for personnel in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Meanwhile, they can make fixed allotments into a bank account. Other methods of payment, including the use of Giro, to reduce cash requirements, are being studied.

Mr. Janner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he make arrangements to enable all Service men to obtain their money without going through the out-dated routine of the pay parade?

Mr. Kirk: We are moving as fast as we can precisely to that end.

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress with the multi-rôle combat aircraft proposition.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Antony Lambton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my hon. Friend gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Sir E. Bullus).—[Vol. 805, c. 140–1.]

Mr. Marten: As Britain has massive experience in Mach 2 combat aircraft designed for these purposes, and as Germany and Britain are ordering 400 of these aircraft each, should not the design leadership now be given to Britain?

Mr. Lambton: Overall design responsibility rests, as my hon. Friend knows, with Panavia, not with Germany, and the Chairman of Panavia is at present British.

Mr. John Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is impressed with the progress made to date in welding together the different interests of the three main nations involved, and could he say what expectation we may have of when the aircraft will come into service?

Mr. Lambton: It is difficult to be precise about a date. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the co-operation between the three countries has been most welcome and desirable.

Army Command and District Headquarters (Staff Appointments)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will state the number of commissioned officers holding staff appointments at Army command and district headquarters in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: 602 officers hold staff appointments or are attached to command or district staffs.

Mr. Moyle: As many military authorities think that there are far too many officers at these headquarters both for the good of the Army and for the good of the officers, will he undertake to conduct an inquiry into the position to see whether the numbers can be reduced, particularly as the Secretary of State feels that there are not enough men in the Armed Forces?

Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman should remember that the workload also is considerable. The Army command structure in the United Kingdom is under review, and we are hopeful that the results will show that it will be possible to make significant manpower savings.

Western Europe (British Commitment)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of State for Defence what proposals he has regarding the size of the British commitment to the defence of Western Europe.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): Support of N.A.T.O. remains our first defence priority. We intend, therefore, not only to maintain the general


level of our commitments to N.A.T.O. but, as the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 which was presented yesterday shows, to increase them in some important respects.

Mr. Moyle: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, called upon all countries in Western Europe to make substantially increased commitments to N.A.T.O. in view of likely American withdrawals. Are the figures to cover these substantially increased commitments in the White Paper tabled yesterday?

Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir; the increased commitments to N.A.T.O. are covered by the figures in the White Paper. They include the running on of the "Ark Royal". They include the increase of the number of Jaguar squadrons from five to nine, and the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve armoured car regiment.

Mr. George Thomson: In view of the increased number of Jaguars to be used for operational purposes and the reduced number for training purposes, how will the Minister fill the training gap?

Lord Balniel: An alternative trainer will be introduced at a lower cost.

Services (Manpower Costs)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will list the reasons why 348,400 civilians in the Services cost more than the 385,700 Service men.

Lord Balniel: Civilians supporting the Services cost less than Service personnel. The costs given in Annex B of the 1970 Statement on Defence Estimates, which the hon. Member presumably has in mind, are not comparable. That for Service personnel excluded issues in kind such as food, the value of which is now provided for in the military salary and for which they pay. That for civilians included the cost of Ministry of Public Building and Works staff employed on defence work whose numbers were not included in the total of 348,400. The comparable figures are £454 million for civilians and £663 million for Service personnel.

Mr. Lipton: Despite all that conglomeration of statistics, have we not reached a stage at which we are having more and more tail and less and less teeth in our Services?

Lord Balniel: No, Sir. In fact, the reduction in civilian manpower is at a faster rate than the reduction in military manpower, contrary to the general belief, and we shall continue to reduce the numbers of civilian manpower substantially in the Ministry of Defence in the immediate future.

Second Battalion, Scots Guards

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he has now reached a decision as to the future of the Second Battalion, Scots Guards.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Second Battalion, Scots Guards, is being retained at company size.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank my hon. Friend for the relatively small mercy of an independent company, which does fit quite well into the organisation of the Guards division. In view of the excellent recruiting record of this regiment, will he bear in mind the possibility of soon restoring it to full battalion status when the review foreshadowed yesterday by his noble Friend takes place?

Mr. Gilmour: Yes, Sir, certainly.

Mr. George Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the expansion promised yesterday in these company-size units will take place as the recruitment figures go up, or will they have to wait until the recruitment demands of the existing active units are already met?

Mr. Gilmour: I am not exactly sure of the significance of the distinction which the right hon. Gentleman draws. We hope that, when recruitment improves, these units will go up to their former strengths.

Rubbish Clearance (Tower Hamlets)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many other ranks, non-commissioned officers and officers were recently engaged in rubbish clearance in Tower Hamlets; how many hours this took; what vehicles and equipment were used; what was the pay drawn


by each of these men for that day and in total; what were their total allowances for food and lodgings; and whether Tower Hamlets will have to pay.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The numbers involved were two officers, two warrant officers, nine non-commissioned officers, and a total of 31 sappers and guardsmen. They used 21 vehicles of various types. The time taken on the task was approximately 7½ hours. The individuals concerned received their normal pay and allowances; the detailed amounts and the total have not yet been established. No special allowances for food and lodgings were issued.
A charge for the service will be made against the local authority.

Mr. Lewis: Did not these men receive far more—and rightly so—than the council workers who would normally do the job? Is it not wrong that local authorities generally should charge and collect rates from the ratepayers and not use that money on the services for which they are allegedly drawing rates? Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that, if troops are used in the future, they are fully paid for by the councils to the Ministry of Defence and that the councils return to the ratepayers the money which they have been saving since the strikes have been on?

Mr. Gilmour: There is no question of local authorities saving money by the use of troops. They will be charged the full cost of what they would have had to pay otherwise, or, if the extra costs which the Ministry of Defence incurs are greater, they would be charged those costs.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend pay absolutely no attention to what the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said, but, on the contrary, will he thank the soldiers concerned for doing a very unpleasant job very well?

Mr. Gilmour: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that his feeling is widely shared.

Aircraft Carriers and Fixed-Wing Flying

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make

a statement about the future of the aircraft carriers and fixed-wing flying in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has for the future development of British fixed-wing carrier-based airpower.

Mr. Kirk: I would refer my hon. Friends to the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970, Cmnd. 4521, published yesterday and to the statement which my noble Friend subsequently made in the House.—[Vol. 805, c. 223–39.]

Mr. Wall: As the "Ark Royal" is being retained to cover the gap till short or vertical take-off aircraft can be deployed with the Fleet, and as these aircraft will then be an integral part of the Fleet, will my hon. Friend confirm that they will be operated and flown by the Royal Navy?

Mr. Kirk: This is a matter which we still have under review.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend take into account that, for the first time, we now have a range of truly inter-operable aircraft and that it would be a pity not to utilise this potential to the full? Reverting to the statement by his noble Friend about the establishment of an operational conversion unit for the Jaguar, may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Jaguar might not be a suitable aircraft for maritime operation?

Mr. Kirk: That is another question.

Mr. George Thomson: How long will it be before the "Ark Royal" has to go out of service for another refit?

Mr. Kirk: Speaking from memory, I think that it is about four years.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of State for Defence which aircraft carriers are suitable for modernisation for use in the mid-1970s.

Mr. Kirk: H.M.S. "Eagle" could be modernised to operate Phantom aircraft by the middle 1970s, though not H.M.S. "Hermes". However, the period of service remaining before the new naval weapons are planned to enter service would not make this worthwhile, even if manpower were available for her. H.M.S.


"Ark Royal", which the Government now intends to retain in service as an aircraft carrier until the late 1970s, has recently completed a major refit.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will it be necessary to give the "Ark Royal" another major refit, after the phasing out of "Eagle" in 1972?

Mr. Kirk: The "Ark Royal" will need another long refit before 1978.

Mr. John Morris: When will the "Ark Royal" get her next refit—the short one? What do the Government intend to do while she is having it?

Mr. Kirk: I answered the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) on that point a little while ago.

Polaris

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the modernisation of the Polaris force.

Lord Balniel: I have little to add to the Reply I gave my hon. Friend on 22nd July. We are doing what is considered necessary to maintain the effectiveness of the United Kingdom Polaris Force, and keep this matter under continuous review.—[Vol. 804, c. 131.]

Mr. Wall: As it has been said that our deterrent is credible only with a fifth vessel, is consideration being given to building that vessel or is the Minister considering re-equipping the existing four Polaris submarines with Poseidon?

Lord Balniel: The option to build a fifth Polaris submarine remains open to us and will be under review during the continuing review of measures required to maintain the effectiveness of our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent, which is at present completely credible.

Mr. John Morris: But could the hon. Gentleman tell the House that the Government have no intention of building a fifth Polaris submarine?

Lord Balniel: Of course not.

Persian Gulf

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will

now make a statement about the United Kingdom defence rôle in the Persian Gulf.

Lord Balniel: I am not yet able to make a statement.

Mr. Hamilton: When does the Minister expect to receive the recommendations of Sir William Luce on this matter? Will they be made public? Will the hon. Gentleman give assurances that no British troops will stay there unless the local rulers publicly declare that they want them to?

Lord Balniel: Sir William Luce is making his report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and it is for my right hon. Friend to make whatever statement is appropriate.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the local rulers are very anxious to have a British presence there? Is it not true that such a presence would be a great advantage to safeguarding our interests in that part of the world?

Lord Balniel: It is better that we should await the report of Sir William Luce. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate these matters in the near future.

Mr. George Thomson: How was it possible to give firm defence targets in yesterday's White Paper when the Government state that they have not yet taken their decision on such a major policy matter as our future rôle in the Persian Gulf?

Lord Balniel: The cost of a rôle in the Persian Gulf would be fairly limited and would come within the defence budget targets.

Cape Sea Routes

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what is his policy with regard to the protection of sea routes around the Cape by the Royal Navy.

Lord Balniel: The policy is to provide the best possible protection for our vital trade routes in conjunction with others having an interest.

Mr. Cronin: Having regard to the Government's policy towards South Africa in recent times, what is the nature of any


credible threat by the Soviet navy in these waters short of a global war?

Lord Balniel: The threat lies in the importance of the sea routes to the United Kingdom. It lies in the capability of the Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean. It lies in the public statement made by their leaders and the history of their policies and actions, which compel us to plan on the basis that there is a threat which may develop. There has undoubtedly been a significant increase in Soviet maritime presence in the Indian Ocean.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my hon. Friend suggest to N.A.T.O. that it might extend its interest to that area, as it has practically become the southern flank of N.A.T.O.?

Lord Balniel: A great deal of importance should be attached to my hon. Friend's statement. I believe that there is throughout the world a growing understanding of the strategic importance of the Indian Ocean.

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. Perhaps you can help the House, Mr. Speaker. Why is this Question being answered by the Minister of State and not by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk), who has been out in the Indian Ocean on this specific task on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Fernyhough.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of what is implied by the Minister's answer, can he tell us what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had to say to Mr. Gromyko this week about the so-called danger, and whether it is real or imaginary?

Lord Balniel: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts down a Question to the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has any African State offered base facilities to Her Majesty's Government which could replace those of Simonstown?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the consultations have been private, and it would be wrong for me to comment on them.

Mr. John Morris: What kind of naval force would be necessary to deal with whatever threat from the Soviet Union there is in that part of the world?

Lord Balniel: It depends on the particular threat which is posed. The response will depend on the specific threat. This is something we must consider, and we are considering it in consultation with a number of other countries.

Torpedoes

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the efficiency of torpedoes supplied to submarines and other ships of the Royal Navy.

Mr. Kirk: As I made clear in my answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 24th July, the torpedoes in service with the Royal Navy are fully effective.—[Vol. 804, c. 244–5.]

Mr. Cronin: In view of the disclosures of recent serious defects which came to light during the past year, will the Minister make sure that there are regular and careful checks of the Royal Navy's armament in future?

Mr. Kirk: We are doing that. All the defective detonators are being replaced. They are practically complete.

Mr. John Morris: Will the Minister personally consider the effectiveness of the whole administration of torpedoes?

Mr. Kirk: I absolutely agree that our inheritance here was the most shocking in all the fields of defence, and I am considering it.

Armed Services (Recruitment)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps are being taken to improve recruitment to the armed services, in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding military commitments east of Suez.

Lord Balniel: The Government are working to create among young people, and those who advise them on their choice of career, a greater awareness of the importance to the nation of the


Armed Forces and the tasks they undertake, as well as the high quality of the careers offered within the Services.

Mr. Molloy: In view of the Government's policy to accept responsibilities by the Armed Forces east of Suez, to increase the contribution to N.A.T.O., and to clear up Petticoat Lane, when the training starts, if the recruitment is successful, which will be given the priority—training for service east of Suez or for strengthening N.A.T.O.?

Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that since July there has been an increase in recuitment to the Services of 11·5 per cent. I think that this reflects to some extent the efforts being made by the present Government.

Mr. Allason: In view of the very serious recruiting situation which the Government inherited, will my hon. Friend look at the experience back in 1962–1963, when Sir Frederic Hooper was employed to advise the Government on recruiting, with a resultant tremendous boost to our recruiting figures?

Lord Balniel: Recruiting is undoubtedly one of the most serious constraints on the development of the Armed Forces. I am giving it the most urgent attention, and I hope before too long to be able to make a statement to the House.

Mr. George Thomson: Will the Minister put that highly selective statistic which he has just given into proper perspective and pay credit where it is due? Will he tell the House that during the last 12 months of our administration recruiting went up by about 8,000 over the previous 12 months?

Lord Balniel: If the right hon. Gentleman feels anxious for some credit, I will happily give it to him.

Jaguar Programme

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Jaguar programme.

Mr. Lambton: I would refer my hon. Friend to the section on the Jaguar in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 published yesterday (Cmnd. 4521).

Mr. Onslow: Can my hon. Friend tell the House anything about the difficulties being experienced with the engines of Jaguar?

Mr. Lambton: Every new plane has certain teething problems. These have not been out of the ordinary.

B.B.C. Television Play

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of State for Defence what assistance was given by his Department in the production of the British Broadcasting Corporation television play, "Sovereign's Company".

Mr. Ian Gilmour: None, Sir.

Mr. Onslow: In the light of the Answer to Question 17, can my hon. Friend tell us what reason he has been given by the B.B.C. for its anxiety to present as authentic what was in fact a fictional and deplorable travesty of conditions at R.M.A. Sandhurst? Will he ask the B.B.C. what good it thinks this image would do to the Services if it succeeded in getting it accepted generally?

Mr. Gilmour: I have had no communications with the B.B.C., but the Department refused to co-operate in the making of the film because it realised from the script that it would produce a thoroughly distorted picture of cadet life at Sandhurst.

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: asked the Minister of State for Defence what viable operational rôle he proposes for the surviving 120 men of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders; and what long-term career structure is planned for soldiers recruited into this sub-unit of infantry.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: They will be given a rôle as an airportable company in a brigade of 3 Division. Officers and men will have career prospects equal to those of the rest of the Scottish Division.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: What will be the career structure for recruits who enlist and want to serve in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, particularly if they come from the territorial counties of the Regiment—Argyll, Stirling, Clackmannan, Kinross, Renfrew and Dunbar-ton? If they are posted to other regiments in the Scottish Division, is there any


guarantee that they will at some time in their service serve with the Argylls? The second part of my question—

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be brief.

Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: I understand that there are no officers at Sandhurst, or going to Sandhurst, earmarked for commissioning into the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Therefore, if the Regiment is to be re-raised in two years' time as a battalion, where are the officers coming from?

Mr. Gilmour: Recruits to the Scottish Division who express a preference for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders will be posted to serve with the company as and when vacancies exist, subject to manning priorities within the Division. As to my hon. and gallant Friend's information about those who will go to Sandhurst in the next year or two, I have not had similar information.

Mr. William Hamilton: How is the special recruitment campaign for the Argylls going? Has recruiting gone beyond the one that it was a month ago?

Mr. Gilmour: In spite of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) yesterday and the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question, the reprieve of the Argylls as one company was widely welcomed in Scotland.

Beira Patrol

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are his intentions regarding the future of the Beira Patrol of the Royal Navy.

35. Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement about the Beira Patrol.

Mr. Kirk: The Beira Patrol is one of the means of enforcing sanctions imposed on Rhodesia. It is the intention of the Government to explore the possibilities of a just settlement with Rhodesia; meanwhile sanctions, including the patrol, will continue.

Mr. Johnson: Whilst I thank the Minister for his reply, will he bear in

mind the defiant posture taken up by Mr. Smith two days ago in his speech about this country? Will he assure the House that our battleships—

Hon. Members: Battleships?

Mr. Johnson: —are chasing Smith's sanction-busters and not haring after Soviet fishing vessels in the Indian Ocean?

Mr. Kirk: The last Labour Govern-but one got rid of the battleships, but the frigates remain on station and will do so as long as Her Majesty's Government require them to do so.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since petrol is cheaper in Rhodesia than in Britain, is it not a futile method of trying to enforce sanctions, and is it not contrary to the spirit of an alliance to blockade the port of an ally?

Mr. Kirk: The second part of my hon. Friend's question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The reply to the first half is that we are required to keep the refinery at Umtali closed, and it is closed.

Mr. Paget: As this aspect of policy, apart from being a piratical interference with an allied port, has produced a farcial failure, cannot the Government take the opportunity to wind it up, apart from any other negotiations with Rhodesia, because it is expensive and absurd?

Mr. Kirk: It is the Royal Navy's duty to do what it is told in this matter, and it is doing it.

Fleet Air Arm

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of State for Defence what consideration he has given to the future of the Fleet Air Arm and to the number of pilots still available; and whether he will retain it for the operation of fixed-wing aircraft.

Lord Balniel: "Ark Royal's" aircraft will be flown in the main by Royal Navy aircrew but Royal Air Force aircrew will participate as necessary. Some adjustment will be made to the rundown of Fleet Air Arm officers and ratings but recruitment for fixed wing flying will not be re-opened. When the fixed-wing flying task has been completed, the Fleet


Air Arm will continue to operate rotary-wing aircraft from frigates and larger ships. This will be an important and increasing rôle.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on retaining naval air crews, who have a splendid record. How much will it be necessary to call in the R.A.F. towards the end of the extended life of the "Ark Royal"?

Lord Balniel: It is too soon to give such information, but there will be a gradual phasing in of R.A.F. crews.

Army Units (Rundown)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will defer disbandment and amalgamation of infantry regiments and now make a further statement concerning the 3rd Royal Greenjackets, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and other regiments, having regard to international developments since July 1970.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of State for Defence what alterations he is making in the rundown of Army units.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The reduction of a tenth major unit, which the previous Administration considered might be necessary will not take place. Those infantry units due to be disbanded in Phase II of the rundown are to be retained at company size. This includes the 3rd Royal Green Jackets and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. Of the two infantry units planned to be amalgamated, one, the 1st Battalion, The Gloucestershire Regiment, will be retained at battalion size, and the other, the 1st Battalion, The Royal Hampshire Regiment, at company size. The amalgamation planned in the Royal Armoured Corps will still take place but an additional Squadron will be raised in the new Regiment. The Royal Engineers will retain a reduced Squadron.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the regiments selected for retention at company strength, notably the Royal Hampshire Regiment, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the 3rd Royal Green Jackets, have all traditionally recruited in areas which have an illustrious record for recruiting,

particularly, for example, the Royal Hampshire Regiment? Why cut a regiment down to this mini-strength when it has such a huge recruiting potential?

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is saying that these units were illustrious in many different ways. Of course we should have liked them to continue at full strength, but the manpower situation which we inherited made this impossible.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how the Government will use these reprieved companies operationally? Will he make clear what career prospects there are in them for senior non-commissioned officers and, possibly, senior captains and majors?

Mr. Gilmour: Possible tasks which can be performed by these companies are as air portable companies in brigades of 3 Division, in operational rôles in the Mediterranean, or reinforcement in Northern Ireland, in participation in contingency operations overseas, in demonstration duties, and assistance with recruiting and training, with the TAVR, and in cadet training, and public duties. The hon. Gentleman also asked about prospects for careers. The Army is organised in divisions and therefore the career prospects in these companies will not be affected.

Mr. George Thomson: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that, from any extra recruits which the efforts of the Minister of State bring in, these company-sized units will have priority in build-up of strength over and above the general requirements of the rest of the Army?

Mr. Gilmour: As my right hon. Friend said yesterday, if the recruiting situation improves, these units will be the first to be expanded.

Mr. Longden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the best recruiting record of any regiment in the Army was held by the Durham Light Infantry? What plans has he for resurrecting that regiment?

Mr. Gilmour: I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it is impossible for us to undo all the damage done by the previous Administration.

British Forces (East of Suez)

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the run-down of British forces east of Suez.

Lord Balniel: Our plans for retaining forces in South East Asia after 1971 are described in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy (Cmnd. 4521) presented yesterday. As the forces which we shall be retaining in Malaysia and Singapore will be substantially smaller than they are today, the rundown there is continuing.

Mr. Sheldon: In view of the rundown when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the land forces in South-East Asia will be reduced to the battalion group mentioned in the Defence White Paper?

Lord Balniel: I cannot answer that without notice. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will answer it.

Northern Ireland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister State for Defence what steps he has taken during the recess to improve security arrangements and to meet the threat from armed terrorists groups operating in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Specific measures include an intensification of border surveillance and controls, the introduction of new riot control equipment and a continuing build up of the U.D.R.'s capability. Additionally, experience gained during the summer has been translated into a number of improvements in the conduct of operations.

Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great anxieties felt in Northern Ireland at the slowness of the Army in reacting? For instance, in Newtownards Road for seven hours there was murderous gunfire, with several civilians being shot and many injured, but the Army units which were on the scene did not fire one shot back. At the Customs post were there was an explosion, the Army was slow to appear and seemed to take no effective action. Will my hon. Friend take steps to improve

the speed and flexibility with which the Army responds?

Mr. Gilmour: I cannot accept any of the implications in my hon. Friend's supplementary Question. The Army has not been at all slow to react. It adopts the doctrine of minimum force and tries to fire as little as possible.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Army Housing Estates

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he has taken to improve the management of Army housing estates.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The organisation set up in 1969 to administer Army housing estates is to be reviewed early next summer to see whether, in the light of experience gained, any alteration is required.

Mr. Boyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the scheme is not being cut and that the cuts proposed in the White Paper do not affect the married quarters building programme?

Mr. Gilmour: We have no intention of cutting the married quarters building programme. As I explained yesterday, we are increasing it. We are looking at the housing management situation, but I cannot give any undertaking now.

Malta (Defence Establishments)

Mr. Mather: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will stop the rundown of our defence establishments in Malta.

Lord Balniel: The deployment of our forces overseas and the support facilities provided for them are, of course, kept under review but I have no changes to announce at present as regards defence establishments in Malta.

Mr. Mather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation in the Mediterranean has changed, that the Russians now dominate the North African coast, that what we used to think of as N.A.T.O.'s southern flank has become


N.A.T.O.'s second front, and that Malta is one of its forward bastions?

Lord Balniel: This is one of the factors we shall take into account in our planning. I have nothing to add at present to the statement I have made.

Chipmunk and Gnat (Replacements)

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence what types of aeroplane will be ordered to replace the Chipmunk and the Gnat in the primary- and advanced-flying training rôles, respectively.

Mr. Lambton: We have no plans to order a replacement aircraft for the primary training rôle. As regards advanced flying training, I would refer my hon. Friend to the section on the Jaguar in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of introducing a simplified variant of the Jaguar trainer version on the lines of the French "E" version, which could be both cheap and effective?

Mr. Lambton: We are trying to leave every option open at the moment.

Donaldson Committee

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on the findings of the Donaldson Committee on the discharge on request of young Service men who enlisted between 15 and 18 years of age.

Mr. Torney: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will allow optional discharge for boy entrants to Her Majesty's forces when they reach the age of 18 years.

Dr David Owen: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report of the committee set up under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson to look into the terms and conditions of service of boy entrants.

Lord Balniel: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Nigel Fisher).—[Vol. 805, c. 220.]

Mr. Allaun: Whilst not anticipating the details of the Donaldson Report, can the

right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance on the general principle that it is an inhuman thing to keep boys who enlisted at 15 for 12 years in the forces against their will?

Lord Balniel: It would be wrong for me to anticipate a report which had not yet been published, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am giving it most sympathetic and careful attention.

Mr. Torney: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these boys when they enter the forces are very keen but that when they become 18 they find that it is not the life for them after all and want to change their minds, and that they should be given the opportunity to do so?

Lord Balniel: I think the House appreciates that this is an enormously complex matter involving the engagement structure of all the Services. As I have said, I am giving the matter most sympathetic consideration.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had in recent months with Commonwealth Prime Ministers about Great Britain's negotiations to join the Common Market.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have had consultations with a large number of my Commonwealth colleagues on this subject in recent months.

Mr. Marten: In that case, is not my right hon. Friend aware of the anxiety building up in some Commonwealth countries about our negotiations over the Common Market—particularly over the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and New Zealand's position? Can he reaffirm that we shall not join the Common Market unless suitable arrangements can be made for our Commonwealth partners?

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement has been stated from the beginning to be one of the major items in the negotiations. In discussion with Commonwealth colleagues, particularly those concerned with sugar, I have found that they accept that this is the case, and they have been carrying on discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about the details.

Mr. Pentland: Apart from the economic issues involved for Britain and the Commonwealth in the present negotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how far the Government would go on the political and constitutional implications involved for Britain and the Commonwealth when these issues in turn have to be negotiated?

The Prime Minister: These are not matters to be negotiated in discussing the Treaty of Rome and they are not being negotiated in Brussels at the moment.

Mr. Tapsell: In view of the great importance which we are naturally giving to the security position in the Indian Ocean at present, has any consideration been given to the position of Mauritius in relation to sugar and the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: I have had three separate discussions with the Prime Minister of Mauritius about a wide range of subjects and on each occasion the question of the European negotiations was included.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman endorse the Australian Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the economic policies of the Common Market, in particular the policy of predatory dumping?

The Prime Minister: I heard the views of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia when he came to London, and I heard them on previous occasions from 1961 to 1963. We have to accept that there is a difference of view here about the activities of the Common Market.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the co-ordination of policies on regional development, as between the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Employment and Productivity.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on the Government's co-ordination of policies on regional development.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has the leading responsibility for regional policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for regional industrial development. My right hon. Friends work closely together and with the Secretary of State for Employment on the employment and manpower aspects of regional policy.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a good deal of alarm, among small firms in particular, concerning the change from investment grants to allowances? Who will take the decision when a power station, for example, which is now fuelled by coal, wants to turn to oil, jeopardising thousands of jobs among miners? What co-ordinating machinery is there for taking such a decision and making sure that these jobs are safeguarded?

The Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained, considerable trouble has been taken to ensure that there is the necessary incentive for investment in development areas and that the differential should be maintained. When it comes to a particular question, such as that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, obviously the Department of Trade and Industry has a leading part because it is responsible for industrial development in the regions, but the rest of the Cabinet and Cabinet Committee co-ordinating procedure is there to handle the other Departments concerned.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the policy announced on Tuesday, it is the intention of the Government to spend less money on development areas than was spent by the previous Government? How far short of the money spent by the Labour Government will be spent by the present Government in the regions?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend explained on Tuesday that the balance is roughly the same. The hon. Gentleman must take into account the amount of Government money which is to be spent on infrastructure, quite deliberately, in the regions.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the Prime Minister aware that this statement is rather


complicated? Would he agree before long to receive a deputation from those of us who are interested in the satisfactory working of regional government so that we may have a jolly good heart-to-heart talk?

The Prime Minister: It would not be the first occasion on which I have had a heart-to-heart talk with my hon. Friend. Ministers are perfectly prepared to discuss questions of the organisation of regional development. It was clearly set out in the White Paper and I think that when my hon. Friend addresses herself to my Answer, she will find that it is very simple and very clear.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Are we to take the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) as confirming that the Government will in fact spend on the development areas as much as the former Government were spending, even though it is directed, as he said, in different ways? Secondly, is he in a position to say whether the regional economic planning councils and the regional planning boards will be maintained under this as under the previous Government? Finally, will he take the opportunity to deny hints, which appear to have been coming from some of his Ministerial colleagues, that development area incentives will be channelled to growth points instead of being available, as hitherto, to the whole of a development area as now scheduled?

The Prime Minister: We have always made it plain that there would be general incentives for the development areas as a whole but that we would use the Local Employment Acts to secure special encouragement and selective encouragement for particular projects in the development areas. That remains our policy. When balancing the amount of money to be spent, all these factors must be taken into account. Nobody can say exactly how many special projects will come forward under the Local Employment Acts in any particular year, or to what the total grant will amount.
The first of the economic boards was set up in 1963 by myself as Secretary of State for Regional Development. That in the North-East was the prototype. They are continuing. I have no statement to make about the councils at the moment.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the questions I put to him? Are we to take his answer to my hon. Friend as meaning that the total spent year by year by the present Government on the development areas as a whole will be equal to or greater than the amount which we were spending? Will he give that assurance? Secondly, will he answer my other question about whether, apart from the Local Employment Acts—[Interruption.] There are two million people who are involved in manufacturing industry in these regions, which do not include Dorset. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as I asked, that the existing incentives will be spread over the whole area—apart from Local Employment Act projects—and not just the growth points?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks about existing incentives, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced and published in his White Paper what the incentives from now on are to be. The White Paper sets out the position very clearly. The House will have the opportunity to debate all this next week.
The total is bound to depend on how much is spent on individual projects.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Ah!

The Prime Minister: There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman slipping down in his seat and shouting "Ah.". If he will address his mind to a little simple arithmetic, he will see that, including the Local Employment Act grants, what matters is not the total amount spent, but the total of results achieved. The right hon. Gentleman was more unsuccessful than any previous Government in the development areas while spending more money, but we do not propose to follow his example.

Mr. Varley: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to study an article in today's Evening Standard? It is written by the Director-General of the C.B.I. who expresses grave doubts about the Government's new proposals for the regions. In view of this opinion that investment will be very unattractive, will not the Prime Minister look at this matter again, particularly as that opinion comes from such an authoritative source?

The Prime Minister: We have weighed up all of these matters, but of course I will read what the Director-General of the C.B.I. has written. I hope that something will be written by the General Secretary of the T.U.C. so that I can balance up the two things. We believe that incentives in the regions will be greater than they have been in the past.

COMPETITION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with the sole responsibility for policy in relation to competition.

The Prime Minister: Responsibility now rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Prime Minister get his right hon. Friend to study the report of the Prices and Incomes Board on tea prices? That shows that shopping around does not keep prices down and that market leaders tend to drag them up? May I tell him that I have taken the advice of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I have done some shopping around and found that in three leading supermarkets tea prices are exactly the same? Housewives who take his advice and that of his right hon. Friend will be wasting their time if they are trying to keep prices down.

The Prime Minister: Of course my right hon. Friend will study that report; I do not doubt that he has already done so. But that in no way invalidates the general principle—it may considerably strengthen it—of emphasising the importance of proper competition under the Acts already on the Statute Book.

GREECE

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek a meeting with the Prime Minister of Greece.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Fraser: Thank goodness for that! Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to a report in a Greek newspaper, Nea Politeia, about private discussions

which he is reported to have had with Greek officials in London when he was Leader of the Opposition? If that is true, what bearing do they have on Government policy? If it is false, will he confirm that the Greek junta consists of not only Fascists but liars?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If he cares to send me a copy, I will read it. I have no recollection of having had discussions with anybody at the Greek Embassy throughout the five years that I was Leader of the Opposition.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barnett: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister with sole responsibility for industrial investment.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Industrial investment is rightly the joint concern of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Barnett: Would not the Prime Minister agree that a major cause of our poor economic performance since the war has been low industrial investment? Would he not confirm that the gains to the Exchequer which are to be presumed from Tuesday's statement are bound to fall hard on company liquidity and even harder now that the additional bank squeeze has been announced today? Is he telling companies, therefore, that the only way in which they can get increased liquidity for investment is to increase prices while resisting wages?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. One has to take into account the resources which these firms themselves will be able to retain from their earnings as a result of the change in corporation tax. I understand that the banks themselves have already stated that the special deposits are unlikely to bear on firms and corporations.
The argument about lack of investment is powerful, but there is an equally powerful argument that what we also lack is the efficient use of existing investment and that we could gain a great deal if we used our existing investment more effectively, as well as making new investment.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Prime Minister's failure to refer to any rôle of the Secretary of State for Scotland in this Question and in a previous Question about the co-ordination of regional policy explain why the Secretary of State has played so little part in the production of the recent package of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and why this package is regarded throughout Scotland by the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and all other responsible bodies as totally irrelevant to Scotland's needs?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales played a very important part in the whole of these discussions. I do not accept the view that the changes which we are making will be damaging to these areas; in fact, they will be exactly the reverse.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the only correct arbiter for successful investment policy, whether in nationalised or in private industry, is a profitable and viable rate of return on the capital employed in the industries concerned?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. This is one of the major purposes of making the change-over from a grant system, which operates regardless of profit or loss, to one of allowances, which encourage profitability.

Mr. Duffy: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the disturbingly low level of net new foreign investments, that there ought to be some measure as a matter of urgency, in addition to the attendant cut in corporation tax, to act as a carry-over for industry until it begins to feel the benefits of tax allowances against depreciation?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows from my right hon. Friend's statement that the arrangements made up to 26th October will continue and, at the same time, the new allowances arrangement will begin. The interim period will be helped by the change in corporation tax on 1st January which gives companies an extra £60 million of liquidity.

LOCAL AUTHORITY MANUAL WORKERS (STRIKE)

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castle (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether, in view of the mounting risks to public health and convenience of the public from the strike of local authority manual workers and the fact that an increasing number of local authorities are concluding local settlements, he will make a statement on the steps he is taking to end the strike.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Officials of my Department had separate meetings in the first half of September with representatives of both sides of the National Joint Council for Local Authority Manual Workers. It was clear at these meetings that the unions were not prepared to accept the employers' existing offer which included an earnings guarantee of £16 10s. 0d. and would have meant an increase in labour costs of 14 per cent.
I therefore felt it necessary to inform both sides that while the Department's conciliation services would be available to assist parties in reaching a settlement involving a redistribution of the offer on a more acceptable basis but within the same total cost, the Government were not prepared to allow the Department's conciliation services to be used to press the employers to make a higher offer. This remains the Government's view.
Discussions have since taken place between the two sides. I understand that at a meeting of the National Joint Council on 24th October a revised offer was not accepted by the unions, but the two sides decided jointly to appoint an independent committee of inquiry. The committee is now meeting under the chairmanship of Sir Jack Scamp.
I very must regret that, despite the union's agreement jointly to appoint and take part in this inquiry, they have not felt able pending the outcome of the inquiry to call off the strikes which have affected services in a number of local authority areas since 29th September.
I understand that out of a total of 1,600 local authorities, all but a very small minority are supporting the line taken by their national negotiators. Only some 20 have agreed to pay the increases demanded by the unions.
The Government are fully aware of the risk that the strikes may endanger public health and water supplies and have made clear on several occasions that they are ready to take all necessary measures to deal with the situation in any authority's area, should the need arise.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not grotesque that, with the strike in its fifth week, the right hon. Gentleman should just stand by and do nothing? Is he not aware that the refusal of his Department to allow his conciliation services to be used in this dispute is unprecedented in the history of the Department and is a clear breach of statutory duty to provide conciliation services which has only succeeded in hardening the attitude of the unions and the men concerned? Is it not a fact that the hopes of settlement of this dispute are now pinned on a court of inquiry which he ought to have set up but refused to do? Will he now admit that he has been wrong in his attitude and get cracking and settle this dispute?

Mr. Carr: The short answer to all of the right hon. Lady's questions is "No". I do not accept, nor do I believe that some of my distinguished predecessors—Ministers of Labour—have accepted, that the only rôle of conciliation is either to press employers to increase offers or to press unions to reduce claims. There is a proper, genuine and valuable rôle of conciliation—

Hon. Members: What is it?

Mr. Carr: —in helping the parties to discover the strength of each other's positions and feelings and to help the amount on offer to be redistributed in a way more acceptable to the parties. I made it clear to the parties in my statement and from the very beginning of this dispute that my Department's conciliation services were available in those respects and still are. The right hon. Lady should bear in mind that we are dealing here with an offer made by the employers of 14 per cent.—

An Hon. Member: Of what?

Mr. Carr: —with guaranteed minimum earnings of £16 10s. and a minimum weekly increase for male workers of 37s. to 38s. a week—and in a year in which the right hon. Lady, when she was in my

position, issued a White Paper saying that the norm for increases should be between 2½ per cent. and 4½ per cent.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not also a fact that we are dealing with a union claim for an increase of 55s. a week for men, a number of whom are taking home less than £15 a week and whose wages this Government are dedicated to hold down while pursuing policies which reduce the social wage and are designed inevitably to put up prices?

Mr. Carr: The facts are that the average earnings of the manual workers in local authorities last April were about £21 a week for a working week of 43·7 hours. In other words, there is a degree of overtime less than the national amount of overtime. It is true that these manual workers include some of the lower-paid workers in our labour force. I cannot help but go back to the view expressed by the right hon. Lady and by the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, that the average increase appropriate in the national interest for this year should not be more than 4½ per cent.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend indicate the attitude of the parties to the outcome of the inquiry with particular reference to the extent to which there has been agreement to accept the findings and recommendations?

Mr. Carr: I can tell my right hon. and learned Friend that the employers have stated categorically that they will accept the findings of the inquiry. The unions have said that they will take the findings into account but do not feel able to go further than that.

Mr. Bob Brown: Is the Minister aware that something in the region of 26 per cent. of municipal employees earn less than £15, including overtime and bonuses? Is he further aware that the very responsible men in municipal employment have been forced for the first time into a national stoppage? Is he also aware that it is not conciliation to say that they can negotiate within an offer made by the employers and within that alone?

Mr. Carr: What I am aware of is that this offer included an offer of a guaranteed national weekly wage of £16 10s. a week. This is a figure which the T.U.C. said was a target at which to aim. I am


also aware, as I told the House earlier, that the average earnings for just under the 44-hour week were £21 last April and will be of the order of £24 if the employers latest offer is accepted.

Mr. Emery: Would my right hon. Friend agree that nobody in the House would want to exacerbate the situation? That is the traditional rôle of this House, and it certainly was not helped by the whooping up of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Would my right hon. Friend tell the House what the average wage increase would be on the basis of the offer made by the employers and the average increase demanded by the unions?

Mr. Carr: I think that the average increase resulting from the employers' latest offer would be of the order of 15 per cent. If the unions' claim were met in full, the average increase would be over 20 per cent. I believe that it would be 23 per cent., but I speak from memory and I may be wrong about the precise figure.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: As the right hon. Gentleman has made a good deal of the fact that the average earnings among this group of workers is £21, would he tell us, since he must have been consulted about this and considered it very carefully in present circumstances, how he thinks a man in average family circumstances with earnings of £21 comes out of the package announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday?

Mr. Carr: I am quite certain that the manual workers in the local authorities, if they were to accept the employers' latest offer and had average earnings of £24 a week, would be significantly better off than they were with £21 when the Labour Government were in office.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that many thousands of the people in question would be eligible to draw the supplement announced the other day? In other words, they are among the poverty-stricken people whom the Government believe may need help to the extent of £3. The anomaly is that, whereas he will give them by charity that which they are not getting from their employers, he will not give them the virtues of conciliation?

Mr. Carr: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think about the proposal for a national income supplement, a great many workers will be better off with it than they were without it when the previous Government were in office. What the right hon. Gentleman, and the whole House and country, must bear in mind is that the offer on the table started at 14 per cent. and is now 15 per cent. The Government offered their manual workers in the National Health Service 14 per cent. because they were included among some of the lowest paid workers in the community. What the House and the country must realise is that if we have average earnings increases over the whole economy of that level we shall be in very serious trouble indeed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and all his hon. and right hon. Friends will use their maximum influence to make sure that if the lower paid workers in this country get rises of the scale of 14 and 15 per cent. the higher paid workers do not put in claims for equivalent amounts.

Mr. Finsberg: Is it not a fact that since the last increase awarded, by agreement, by the Whitley Council prices have gone up by 7½ per cent. whereas the latest offer made by the employers is more than double that percentage? Should not that be taken into account in these discussions?

Mr. Carr: That is certainly one of the factors which I took into account in making my decision about conciliation.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman enunciated his policy on conciliation a few weeks ago, is he aware that it has been interpreted as meaning that he is not denying conciliation but that the statutory function of conciliation will be available only within the employers' latest offer and not about the real issues in a particular dispute?
Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman has said, as he did yet again this afternoon, that it is not the function of conciliators, certainly in every case—and one would agree with him—to lean on employers to pay more in a particular situation, is he in a position to assure the House that none of his right hon. Friends has leaned on employers not to increase their offer—for example, perhaps at the Conservative Party conference


and in communications with the Association of Municipal Corporations? Is he not aware that many people have been outraged by threats of blackmail by the Government, referred to in the Prime Minister's letter to an hon. Member published this morning, that they will reduce grants to local authorities if they pay more than the odds which the right hon. Gentleman considers to be appropriate in this case?

Mr. Carr: With some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I had meetings at the beginning of August with the public sector employers, the private employers and the Trades Union Congress, and I gave them precisely the same message. I made it public on behalf of the Government what the Government believed was this country's immediate crucial need, namely, to bring down the pace of cost inflation. That is pressure, if one likes to call it pressure, which we have put on all employers equally, because we believe that if we are to have a free society, unless both employers and unions are prepared to take these overall considerations into account, there is a very poor future ahead of us. The Government have a duty to make these matters of national interest clear, and so did the right hon. Gentleman when he was Prime Minister. He did it in the form of a White Paper which said that increases should not be more than 4½ per cent. a year.

Mr. Harold Wilson: That is very interesting. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question? Will he confirm or deny that his colleagues have been leaning on the employers, telling them not to offer more than 14 per cent., including going as far as blackmail about State grants to local authorities if they did? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that has happened or not?

Mr. Carr: There has certainly been no blackmail at any point. We have put no pressure on any employer which other Governments, including the right hon. Gentleman's Government, have not put in the past. We may have done it more openly and publicly than the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, on reflection, that what he has said today makes it indelibly

clear that he aligns himself with the employers and therefore does not function in a conciliatory capacity? Is he aware that many local authorities, particularly Labour-controlled authorities, have granted the increase in the interests of the people who work in the authorities and of the health of the nation?

Mr. Carr: I do not accept that. Nor do I think that any hon. Member, if he were to talk to the unions involved, would feel that I leant on one side or the other in the dock dispute in July. It is simply not true to suggest that either I or the Government have aligned ourselves with one side or the other.

Mr. Burden: When the last Government introduced a White Paper saying that increases should not be more than 4½ per cent., was not that instructing the employers that that was the amount which they wanted them to offer?

Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about recent history, can he recollect the number of occasions, when leading from the Opposition Front Bench as shadow spokesman, when he called on the Department of Employment and Productivity to return to its rôle of conciliation which it had lost through the prices and incomes policy? Why has the right hon. Gentleman adopted the double standard that he is putting before the House? Where is the honest government that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends talked about? The right hon. Gentleman has now implemented an incomes policy by the stand that he has taken. I feel that he should come clean with the House.

Mr. Carr: It is true that I have condemned—and still do condemn—the sort of statutory incomes policy operated by the Labour Government. It had disastrous results, for which the whole country is now suffering. But all Governments, Labour and Conservative, have always had to take a view of the national interest in the question of increases in incomes, and all Ministers of Labour before me have had to take this into consideration, and have done so in the attitudes that they have adopted in particular disputes, however unfortunate they may be. I believe that, however difficult it may have been, there are at least some people, even on the union side of this dispute, who have some respect for the fact that in


the name of the Government I went to them honestly and openly and told them that conciliation could not involve putting pressure to increase the total offer, rather than let them find it out when they got there.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has made reference to a letter that an hon. Member received from the Prime Minister which stated that grants to local authorities may well be affected by the settlement made. The Minister tended to deny that any pressure had been put on local authorities. As a recipient of that letter, let me make it absolutely clear that the Prime Minister did, in that letter, state quite categorically that the level of grants to local authorities must be a concern of the Government and would be considered. It is therefore absolutely true that the Government have been putting pressure on the employers.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true. It must be true, if the hon. Member says so. But it is not a point of order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order—[Interruption.] On a new point of order on the same issue—[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker, you will rule whether I am out of order. In view of the fact that this letter is being referred to and is not generally available to the House, could not we considerably shorten this discussion and proceed with other business if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would indicate that he will have the letter published in HANSARD or in other ways made available to the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. It is a matter between the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Is it not the case that any increase awarded that is not matched by equal productivity can only be at the expense of the ratepayers, many of whom are worse off than those on whose behalf the claim is being made? Is it not the duty of local authorities to pay no less regard to ratepayers than to their employees?

Mr. Carr: Yes, Sir. It is true that the burden of this increase, or any increase that has to be paid, will have to be borne to a large extent on the rates. Local authorities have made that clear. I expect that I am not the only hon. Member of the House who heard in one connection this morning that there had been an 8d. increase in the rates.

Mr. Harold Walker: Can the Minister say by what statutory authority the Government undertook to indemnify local authorities against legal action? Is not this an unwarranted intervention? Will he also recognise that a fundamental difference between his policy and that of his predecessors lies in the new doctrine that he has enunciated in respect of prices, namely, that market forces will determine price levels? Ought not that to apply to the price of labour as much as to the price of anything else?

Mr. Carr: I do not believe that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman arises under the Private Notice Question to which I am addressing myself. It is a matter for one of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:—

MONDAY, 2ND NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government (Qualification of Councillors) Bill.

Motions on the Weights and Measures Amendment Orders.

TUESDAY, 3RD NOVEMBER—Motions to approve the White Paper on the Re-organisation of Central Government (Command No. 4506) and on the Transfer of Functions Orders.

Motions on the Salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

WEDNESDAY, 4TH NOVEMBER—Motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement of 27th October on


Public Expenditure and Taxation and the related White Papers (Command Numbers 4515 and 4516).

Ways and Means Resolutions on Income Tax and Corporation Tax.

This debate will be continued on Thursday, 5th November, the 4th Allotted Supply Day, when the Vote on Account for the Civil Estimates, 1971–72 will also be before the House.

FRIDAY, 6TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Contingencies Fund Bill and of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

Motions on the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964 Modification Order and on the Anti-Dumping Duty Orders.

MONDAY, 9TH NOVEMBER—Motions on the Southern Rhodesia Act (Continuation) Order and on the Southern Rhodesia (Matrimonial Jurisdiction) Order.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as we have asked in our approaches to the Government, the Government will provide time in the very near future for a debate on defence, as a result of the publication of the White Paper? I believe that that is traditional, but will he confirm that that is to be the case? Secondly, can he say when he expects to find time for a debate on his own Green Paper on various aspects of Parliamentary procedure, Select Committees and other things? Will he find separate time to ensure that there can be a debate about the decision that he announced yesterday in the House in relation to Members' interests, Members being concerned with sales promotion, and things of that kind? Is he aware that on that question many hon. Members may wish to disagree with the terms of particular Resolutions proposed by the Select Committee? In the view of many hon. Members, and in the view of the Select Committee, the matter cannot be left where it is. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like these Resolutions, will he think about coming up with Resolutions that will deal with the menace to the functioning of Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm that the Government will find time to debate the Defence White Paper. The exact time and the arrangements for that debate I hope

we shall be able to discuss through the usual channels. On the second point—a debate on my own Green Paper—I hope to do that in the near future. On the third point, concerning Members' interests, I said yesterday that I was quite clear that what the Select Committee had reported—in respect of the principles that it enunciated—was absolutely correct, and that those principles would be accepted in all parts of the House. My quarrel then—and it remains so—was with the exact terms of the Resolutions, which I genuinely believe would be too restrictive and would inhibit some of the workings of the House to which we have all become accustomed. I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that it is most important for the good name and proper working of the House of Commons that where Members of Parliament have particular outside interests these should be known to their colleagues in the House not only when they take part in debates but also when they are pursuing their normal parliamentary duties. I believe this to be right. I am prepared to consider, through the usual channels, or with the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else, how best to carry that through. I am inclined to believe that the House of Commons often finds it best to rely on the good sense of Members and not to put down matters too rigidly on paper—but I am quite open to consider whether I am right in that regard.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Obviously, there is little between him and many of us on the principles at stake. I welcome the fact that there can be discussions between the parties. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that whatever—to use his word—quarrel he has with the Resolutions, this is not a matter for the Government alone but a matter affecting the standing of the House. It is eminently a matter on which the House should express an opinion. I do not agree with him that it is enough to leave it where it is. We must find some other means—and perhaps not merely by way of these Resolutions. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that either in a debate on the Green Paper or, preferably, in a separate debate, the views of the whole House will be sought before the right hon. Gentleman makes up his mind on the basis of his reading of the Select Committee's report?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put that question. I am afraid that I may have arrogated to myself something which I never intended. I tried to state what my view was. I fully appreciate that this is a matter for the House as a whole. I am delighted to take the views of the House into account, but I thought it right that I should state my views. I hope that I did not give to myself some position which I do not wish to have.
As far as a debate is concerned, I should like to consider this. The right thing to do is to have the discussions first, and then let us see how we get on.

Sir D. Renton: May I refer to my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday that the Government propose to reappoint certain Select Committees and may I remind the House that he said that there would be an early debate upon this matter? May I draw his attention to the importance of losing as little time as possible in the reappointment of the Select Committee on Science and Technology so that that Committee may quickly pick up the threads which were put down in the last Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: As I promised the Leader of the Opposition, we shall have an early debate on my Green Paper.
As to the reappointment of some of the Select Committees referred to in the Green Paper, I would not wish to preempt the views of the House as a whole. On the other hand, there seems to have been some general view that some of these Committees should be reappointed and that the Green Paper was right in making that proposal. If it were so, and if there were agreement through the usual channels, after taking into account the views of both sides of the House, that some of these Committees should be set up before such a procedural debate, I would be ready to accede to that course. But this must be a matter for the House as a whole, and if there should be Members who objected to that course and wanted a debate first, I would wait; but it might be in the general interests of the House and to the general agreement of the House that some of these Committees might be appointed earlier, and I would suggest discussions through the usual channels.

Mr. Strauss: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind when considering discussions on the Select Committee report on the declaration of interest, that he, no doubt unwittingly, misled the House yesterday when he suggested that members of trade unions would be prevented from discussing trade unions when the matter came up before the House. The major resolution which we suggested was greatly concerned with declaration of interest and there was no word about prevention or prohibition of speech.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider something which I think has really greater priority—bringing before the House proposals to implement the Report of the Select Committee on Privileges, which was published three years ago, and whose non-implementation or non-discussion in the House is holding up the proper work of the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Whitelaw: If I have been wrong in what I said, I bow to the right hon. Gentleman. He has a great knowledge of this House—far greater than mine. I must tell him that I was advised of the danger of this particular Resolution, and from that I do not think I withdraw.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point on privileges, I am very concerned to come forward with proposals of that particular Select Committee's report, and I know that there are many Members, including the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who are particularly interested in the matter. I have never forgotten his view, which no doubt he still holds, expressed during the last Parliament, that he was not prepared to allow any further cases of privilege to go forward without considerable debate, until this Select Committee's report had been implemented or measures taken in that regard. I am hoping to bring forward proposals very shortly.

Mr. Buck: Can my right hon. Friend indicate when it is his intention to lay an Order under the British Standard Time Act? Is he aware how welcome it is that the Government have given such an early indication that they do not intend to try to dragoon Members either for or against the Order which will be laid?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say exactly the time when this Order will be brought


before the House. What indications the Government give to their Members is a matter for the Chief Whip. I have a little experience of these sorts of arrangements. Perhaps I should say that if the House is agreed on all sides, and the House does have a free vote, this would help some Members from the North like myself who do not find ourselves in total agreement with many of our colleagues on this issue.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: With regard to the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next Friday, which I presume will be followed shortly after by the normal procedure of the Committee stage, in the Gracious Speech we were promised an immigration Bill. Does this mean that the Bill will be dropped?

Mr. Whitelaw: No, the Bill will come forward in its own due time in this Session. But until the Bill comes forward, this particular Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has to continue and the normal procedure has to go on until it is superseded.

Mr. Iremonger: Has the Leader of the House observed on the Order Paper three important Motions in the names of myself and other hon. Members, on the voluntary civil aid services:
[That this House expresses its admiration of, and thanks to, the thousands of people who have joined the Voluntary Civil Aid Services since the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service were disbanded and who volunteered for training at their own expense so that they could help local authorities to deal with emergencies; and looks forward to the day when Her Majesty's Government will reorganise the emergency services in a way which will enable volunteers to play a full part.]
on air piracy:—
[That this House, being particularly concerned that the problems arising out of continuing acts of piracy in the air should not be overlooked in the general anxiety about mischief in the Middle East and the exploitation of it by the Communist powers; being convicted that air piracy will continue to be used as a weapon by the sick political fringe in all parts of the world, believes that a British initiative to hasten international agreement

on air piracy is urgently required; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to provide time for the matter to be discussed by the House without delay.]
and the protection of honest shoppers:—
[That this House takes note of the fact that Mrs. Molly Horne, of Ayr Green, Romford, Essex, was acquitted on appeal by the North-East London Quarter Sessions of a charge of stealing from the London Co-operative Society's store in Romford on 10th April, 1970; that the conflicting evidence given by detectives employed by the Society gives grounds for suspicion of perjury by one or other of them and of conspiracy between them, and that the criminal investigation department of the police was for that reason concerned to study the progress of the case from the Havering Magistrates' Court; that Mrs. Horne's determination to clear her name has cost her, as well as much anguish and distress, a very considerable slim of money; therefore further notes with surprise and regret that the President of the London Co-operative Society has not responded to the suggestion made to him by the hon. Member for Ilford, North, that the Society should reimburse Mrs. Horne for her expenses and advertise in the Ilford and Romford Recorder newspaper the Society's apologies for the wrong done to her; calls upon the Attorney-General to ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate the evidence given by the two store detectives with a view to instituting criminal proceedings for perjury and conspiracy; further, calls upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department to investigate the Society's security organisation and methods; and, further calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to introduce legislation to require companies responsible for making false accusations to pay the costs incurred by honest shoppers like Mrs. Horne in clearing their names and to insert in the appropriate newspapers substantial and prominent advertisements apologising for the wrong done.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may ask for time to discuss one of those Motions.

Mr. Iremonger: Honest traders, then.

Mr. Whitelaw: Despite my hon. Friend's preference, which I appreciate, I am afraid that I could not promise him


time either next week or in the relatively near future.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the intention of the previous Government to remove selective employment tax from the theatre. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if that Government had remained in power, selective employment tax would have been taken off the theatre by now?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Motion. He must ask a business question.

Mr. Jenkins: I will take full notice of what you have said, Mr. Speaker.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this has not happened and that the party opposite, which is supposed to be devoted to the removal of tax, is responsible for keeping it on? When will he place the relevant Order before the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I have no further statement to make on the matter at the moment.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With regard to the report of the Select Committee on Members' interests, would my right hon. Friend, as well as having discussions through the usual channels to which he referred, initiate discussions collectively if possible with those Members of the Select Committee who are still in the service of the House, with a view to clarifying matters arising out of the report, and explore the possibility of acceptable modifications of the Resolutions which would give effect to the substance of the intentions of the Committee while avoiding possible dangers which would not be generally desired?

Mr. Whitelaw: Most certainly, yes.

Mr. English: On the same subject, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of us would share some of his views on the particular Motions, but would still wish to have a debate? Would he, therefore, arrange a debate as well as having discussions through the channels to which he referred?

Mr. Whitelaw: The first thing is to have the discussions and then see where we get to. I want to have a debate on my Green Paper on Procedure first. I regard that as the most urgent. I could not, in view of my resistance to my colleagues from time to time, be too prodigal with the House's time in some of these matters. We ought to have the discussions first if possible, not only between the two Front Benches, but in the House as a whole and if we can come to some agreed method of proceeding that would be best. I do not rule out a debate. Perhaps we can come to an agreement on some Resolutions if thought desirable. But I would like to await the discussions first.

Mr. John Page: In view of the undertaking given on Tuesday evening by the Minister for Housing and Construction that no further Resolution would be introduced for the approval of the House before a White Paper had been introduced, can my right hon. Friend explain why there are to be amendment Orders to the Weights and Measures Act debated on Monday evening?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to look into this question. I understood my right hon. Friend to say that he would consider putting forward a White Paper on this matter. As for these particular Orders, I did not appreciate, perhaps due to my own ignorance, that they were so closely tied to the whole subject of metrication. I thought they were on the subject of a voluntary procedure. I did not think they were quite in the terms in which my hon. Friend puts them.

Mr. Palmer: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the reappointment of Select Committees, including the Committee on Science and Technology, now depended on the outcome of the debate which the House is to have? Suppose that there is no particular outcome of that debate, what then?

Mr. Whitelaw: I apologise if I did not make myself heard, which is unusual. I did not actually say that all this would have to await the outcome of the debate. What I said was that, as apparently there had been some measure of agreement in the House, as I could judge it, that some of these Committees should be set up before the debate, then after discussions through the usual channels some of them


might be set up. As for the outcome of the debate, whatever happens there will be an outcome to the debate because, once we have had the views of the House, then clearly we must proceed and it must be the Government's responsibility, I hope with the agreement of the House, to put forward proposals. I personally hope that they will be on the lines of the Green Paper that I have presented.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion in my name in regard to getting Secretaries of State to visit our area?
[That, in the opinion of this House, in order that the urgent problems of the North East of England should have adequate comparable facilities for discussion at Cabinet and Parliamentary level enjoyed by Scotland and Wales, the Secretaries of State for Employment, Education and Science, Housing and Local Government, Social Services (representing Pensions and Health), Technology, Transport and the Chancellor of the Exchequer should immediately, jointly and separately, visit the Region, as without face-to-face consultations with moderate opinion locally Secretaries of State cannot be fully conversant with regional needs.]
Could he tell me who in the Cabinet will draw attention to our particular needs in relation to the powers exercised by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that my right hon. Friends who are particularly concerned with regional development, and also my hon. Friends, will be visiting the North-East. It is perhaps fair to point out to my hon. Friend that two members of the Cabinet come from her particular part of the world in the North.

Mr. Oram: Has the Leader of the House noted the publication of the Houghton Report on the adoption of children, and does he appreciate that it is framed in such a way as to invite public comment on a whole series of important propositions? Will he give consideration to a debate in this House as an important means of expressing public opinion on this subject.

Mr. Whitelaw: I fully appreciate the importance of that report and of the subject with which it deals. I am afraid that I could not promise a debate at present, but I will bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Edward Lyons: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered providing time for a debate on the Government's airport policy in Yorkshire, having regard to the recent governmental decision to prevent the extension of the runway at Leeds-Bradford Airport, which could have disastrous effects on the continuation of that airport as well as serious consequences for the development of industry in the region?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. He has given some information to me which I did not previously know. I will see that it is brought to the notice of my colleagues concerned, but I could not possibly promise a debate in the near future.

Mr. William Hamilton: In regard to the matter of declaration of Members' interests, many of us are suspicious of this cosy little tea party arranged between the two Front Benches—Lords reform was a good example. Could we have an assurance that, whatever the outcome of that tea party, there will be a debate on any agreed or disagreed resolutions that might be put forward? The right hon. Gentleman has been a little more forthcoming today than he was yesterday. Could he go a little further and guarantee us a debate on the outcome of that meeting?

Mr. Whitelaw: In regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said about cosy tea parties, I have lived on the opposite side of the "usual channels" for six years, and in all that time I cannot remember having had a cosy tea party. As for his second point, there will necessarily be a debate if as a result of discussions, which I do not wish to confine to the two Front Benches, Resolutions are put forward. There will then, of course, have to be a debate. If it were decided not to put forward any resolutions and if there were disagreement, again I would undertake to have a debate.

Mr. William Price: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to bring


forward the previous Government's Bill to abolish live hare-coursing?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to say about that Bill this week.

Mr. Harper: Will the Leader of the House say when he expects to publish the coal industry Bill?

Mr. Whitelaw: Very shortly and my right hon. Friend will be talking about the subject during this afternoon's debate.

Mr. Shore: In view of the many developments that have taken place since 30th June, the opening of negotiations in Luxembourg for Common Market entry, and bearing in mind the grave worries that these have caused on both sides of the House, will the Leader of the House consider an early debate on the course of the negotiations?

Mr. Whitelaw: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will shortly be making a statement about the latest position. I think that on previous occasions it has been agreed that this should be the procedure so that the House should be kept informed at all stages of negotiations. This is the right way of proceding and I should like to stick to it.

Mr. David Stoddart: Bearing in mind the difficulties of road transport undertakings, problems of public transport, the Government's roads policy and the fact that the Government have now appointed a Minister for the Environment, will the right hon. Gentleman please arrange for an early debate on roads and transportation policy?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will bear all those considerations in mind, but as yet I cannot promise a debate on this subject.

Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the anxieties which were expressed by many of us in the earlier interchange with the Secretary of State for Employment, would the Leader of the House consider the points which were raised by myself and others on this side of the House about Ministers leaning on local authorities and conceivably threatening them and arrange for a statement to be made next week, either by the Prime Minister who wrote the letter to my hon. Friend the Member

for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), or by the right hon. Gentleman himself, so that the anxieties of the House may be allayed? Is he aware that, for reasons the House will understand, we do not want to propose a debate while the dispute is still continuing, but we will want to ask for a debate afterwards on the conduct of the Government in this matter. Will he make available to the House in suitable form the correspondence concerned, which at the moment we can only read about in this morning's Press, and may we have a statement next week?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the possibility of a statement being made next week, I will bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friends who are concerned. I should have thought that the House, on the initiative of the Opposition, had given this matter considerable attention following the Private Notice Question on this matter. If there is any reason to have a statement next week, I will bring it to their attention, but I cannot promise anything.
On the suggestion that the letters should be published, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it would be a somewhat surprising departure if letters from Ministers to Members were to be published, or put in the Library. This would be a new development in the House and we would have to consider it very carefully.

Mr. Harold Wilson: But is he aware that this correspondence has been put in the Daily Telegraph—in whole or in part, I cannot be sure? In these circumstances, when a matter involves public policy as opposed to a constituent's case, it is surely not unusual for hon. Members to ask to see such correspondence. That is what I am suggesting.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not unusual for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House to publish letters they have received from Ministers either in the national or in the local Press. I am not convinced as yet—and I take due account of what the right hon. Gentleman has said—that in this case such a departure from normal practice would be justified.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Leader of the House be able to find time for a debate on the reported suppression by the


Government of the report of the Cohen Committee on housing associations?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I could not promise him time for a debate in the near future.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to use the copying machines to circulate 600 copies of the Prime Minister's letter?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question I would have to look into. I am not sure how many copies an hon. Member is allowed.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a brief statement on the progress of the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his report as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 23rd July.
During the period since I assumed my present office, I have had contacts with many Commonwealth Governments on the subject of the negotiations, which I believe to have been of great mutual benefit. I thought it right to visit Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand during September in order to see for myself, on the spot, the nature of the problems which might arise; and I was able to have extensive discussions with representatives of all three Governments. I have also had the pleasure of meeting Ministers of Canada, Fiji and Commonwealth Caribbean Governments in London. In addition, I am in the course of making visits to all Community capitals. I have already been able to meet several of my Community colleagues, including the president of the European Commission.
I turn now to the progress of the negotiating conference. As my right hon. Friend explained in his statement on 23rd July, fact-finding work was instituted on a broad range of subjects by the Ministerial meeting on 21st July. As has been recognised by the Six themselves, this phase is now over.
Four useful meetings have taken place at the deputies' level in the meantime, largely concerned with preparing the ground for the Ministerial meeting which I attended this week.
I am happy to report that, as a result of this preliminary work, it was possible to record on 27th October the first agreements of the negotiations.
At previous meetings, we expressed some concern whether the Communities' existing arrangements would be adequate, in the circumstances of the enlarged Community, to ensure stability in the markets for pig meat and eggs and to allow adequate supplies of liquid milk. On 27th October, the Community recorded its agreement with our understanding of the possibilities that will be open to us and which would ensure the provision of adequate supplies of liquid milk to meet consumer demand throughout the country and throughout the year; they accepted our views on the importance and characteristics of the bacon market in an enlarged Community and the need for keeping the situation under careful review during the transitional period and thereafter; and they recognised the desirability of stability for pig meat and eggs. We concluded, therefore, that no further points need be raised on these items during the negotiations, except in the general context of transitional arrangements.
We were able also to reach agreement on procedures for an annual review of the economic conditions and prospects of the agricultural industry in the enlarged Community. The Commission will draw up this review for the Council of Ministers on the basis of all the relevant information and after contacts with the agricultural organisations. These arrangements will ensure effective contacts with producers.
The Community confirmed that, in principle, they saw no objection to British dependencies being associated with the enlarged Communities under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome and that Gibraltar would be covered by Article 227(4) of the Treaty, which covers European territories of member states. On the other hand, they indicated that they did not regard the case of Hong Kong as comparable with other dependencies and that it posed special problems which would have to be examined in greater depth. In


reply, I stressed the importance of providing for Hong Kong's interests. The question of Hong Kong will, therefore, need further discussion with the Six.
Finally, in response to a suggestion from the Community side, I confirmed that, as a member of the Community, we would accept the common commercial policy, subject to the development of that policy, and that we should be prepared to make every effort in the meantime to harmonise our policies. We agreed that a mutual exchange of information in this field would be of value to both sides.
These, then, are the results achieved at the meeting on 27th October. They indicate that the negotiations have got off to a serious and positive start. They represent an achievement reached by both sides working together towards a common objective. The political will to make the negotiations a success was evident. It was clear that all realised that a successful outcome is a major interest for Europe as a whole. This was shown not only by the agreements I have outlined but by the desire expressed by both the Community and ourselves to step up the pace. We have, in fact, agreed to tackle all the major issues before the end of this year and to continue to discuss them urgently in the coming months.

Mr. Harold Lever: We all welcome, I am sure, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels able to report a constructive atmosphere in these important negotiations. We have noted, too, his arduous and extensive travels. While I should by no means underestimate the fortitude with which my hon. Friends will bear the absence of Ministers, individual or collective, however protracted, I think that they would wish me to express appreciation for the considerable personal effort which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made to make contact with Commonwealth interests in the way he has. However, although these consultations before negotiation are important, will he assure the House that consultations during the negotiations are regarded by himself and his colleagues as of equal importance, and, in particular, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House whether he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer consulted the Commonwealth countries in relation to the recent statement about agricultural

support, which appears to have caused considerable anxiety and concern, and, indeed, protests from Australian and Commonwealth interests?
May we have an assurance that the Chancellor of the Duchy will not attempt to put these matters into water-tight compartments by some artificial argument, since, clearly, matters like the agricultural support policy are related with our proposed entry into Europe and are of great concern to Commonwealth interests?
As regards the dependencies, I am sure that my hon. Friends will welcome that the Community has accepted that, in principle, there is no objection to their association. May I take it that this has been accepted as regards the Caribbean dependencies as well as others? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made plain the Government's position as regards the protection of Hong Kong's interests.
Finally, on this question may we have an assurance that no negotiations will be undertaken by the Government on behalf of Rhodesia so long as the state of U.D.I. is maintained?

Mr. Rippon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way he received my statement. I assure him that there will be close and continuous consultation throughout the negotiations not only between ourselves and the Commonwealth countries affected but with other countries and our E.F.T.A. partners also.
As regards the changes in the agricultural support system, naturally, the Commonwealth and other countries concerned were informed of the position. I took the opportunity when I was in Australia and New Zealand to say that this was a change of policy which the Government had in mind whether or not we were successful in our negotiations to join the Communities. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall not consider all these matters in water-tight compartments. They are part and parcel of our whole trading and future policy towards Europe and the rest of the world.
As regards the dependencies, subject to the point which I made about Hong Kong and a matter which has to be cleared up about free port facilities in Gibraltar, I think that no difficulties


should arise. In so far as we have to consider in the future the position of the independent developing members of the Commonwealth, I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall have regard to their interests. The position of Rhodesia is a little complicated constitutionally in so far as a territory in rebellion raises certain problems, but there would be no difficulty, if an opportunity should arise, in putting forward the case of Rhodesia for special treatment.

Mr. Thorpe: There will be great satisfaction at the progress which has been made, and I extend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman good wishes for further advances.
First, when will the next full Ministerial meeting take place? Second, as regards Commonwealth countries which face special problems, is it the present feeling of Her Majesty's Government that they should seek an extended transitional period for free entry, or quota-free entry limited to certain quantities, or a combination of both?

Mr. Rippon: We have not taken up fixed positions on these matters. We shall be putting forward more detailed proposals regarding our views, with reference, in particular, to the dairy products of New Zealand and the sugar producing developing territories of the Commonwealth. For these, I feel that it may not be found adequate to have simply transitional arrangements. We may have to have continuing arrangements, subject to review, or adopt a formula of that kind, and I shall certainly take the opportunity to make clear to the Community that regard must be had to the need to strike a proper balance in respect of quantities as well as prices.

Mr. Turton: My right hon. Friend did not make any mention of the length of period of the transitional arrangements for agriculture. Did he make it quite clear to those with whom he was negotiating that any reduction in the six-year period would put an undue burden on the housewives of Britain and be quite intolerable in this country?

Mr. Rippon: What we have done is to put forward a suggestion for six years, which as we now see it, seems a very reasonable period for agriculture, just as

we have suggested three years, which seems reasonable to us, for industry, and one year for the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom. We have not yet had the views of the Community. Our proposals in these matters are for negotiation.
I think I should have added in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party that the next Ministerial meeting will be on 8th December.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am very concerned about that part of the statement where the right hon. Gentleman said that no further point need be raised on bacon, pig meat, milk, eggs during the next negotiations. I would ask him to clarify three points. First of all, will he say that the principle of the bacon market sharing understanding which we negotiated, namely, that the United Kingdom producers will have a growing share of the home market, will be maintained? On milk, will he say whether milk includes milk products—that is to say, cheese and butter—which are of primary importance to the British producer? Will he say whether milk powder is included and that there will be some control of imports of milk powder from the European Economic Community into this country? On the part where he referred to the Annual Review, lest there be any misunderstanding in the farming community in this country, will he make it quite clear that he is not referring to the possibility of no annual Price Review if and when we enter the Common Market?

Mr. Rippon: On the bacon market sharing understanding, of course we shall have to have further discussions on all these matters within the context of the transitional period. There is no doubt about that. As for milk, we were dealing with liquid milk and not with dairy products. We have put in papers about dairy products not only in relation to ourselves but also to New Zealand, and that we shall have to discuss in detail, I hope very shortly. As for the agricultural review, we shall of course be able to have our own Agricultural Review while participating fully in the arrangements which the Community have developed and will continue to develop.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be an


Annual Review. This is very important in relation to the agricultural community. Is he saying clearly that there will be, if and when we enter the Common Market, an annual Price Review on the same terms and conditions as it is held now, and also an annual review held so far as the European Economic Community is concerned?

Mr. Rippon: There will be an Annual Review held in the way in which the Community and ourselves have now agreed, which will enable contact to be made with the producer organisations. We shall also have, too, if we wish to have, our own Annual Review at national level with producer organisations.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: While congratulaing my right hon. Friend on the skill with which he is conducting negotiations in Brussels about which we have all read in today's Times, may I ask him whether he can assure the House that his position is flexible on the transitional periods and that his words on the three years and the six years are his first words and not his last words?

Mr. Rippon: Of course these are first words. What I have made clear is that, so far as we are concerned, there is no doctrinal merit in absolute parallelism, adequate parallelism, or no parallelism at all. What we are concerned to do is to work out with our friends and allies arrangements which ensure that we enter the Community on terms which are fair and reasonable for all parties, for the existing members of the Community and for ourselves.

Mr. Maclennan: While welcoming the negotiations taken so far, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say what, in his view, will be the effect of these negotiations upon the preliminary discussions which are taking place among the Six on aspects of Community policy as, for example, fisheries, and whether he foresees as yet how these problems will be dealt with?

Mr. Rippon: I think we have now reached agreement between ourselves that it is most useful to the pace of these negotiations that all parties refrain from any activities which might make their successful conclusion more difficult.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend clarify his reference to the

acceptance of the commercial code subject to its future development, and say specifically whether this carries any commitment, expressed or implied, to the acceptance of a system of financial or economic integration in whatever forms they may eventually assume within the Six?

Mr. Rippon: My right hon. and learned Friend can be satisfied that questions of economic and monetary integration or future co-operation are outside the framework of the common commercial policy as it now stands. The reservation is put in because we are mainly concerned with any development which takes place during the negotiating period.

Mr. Peart: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would clarify the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) about the Price Review? The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that there will be still an annual Price Review here deciding prices in the normal way, and he added that when we entered the European Community he would hold a Review as far as European prices are concerned. Can these two be adjusted in the way he thinks? Or is he under some misapprehension?

Mr. Rippon: The position is that we are free to have our own Annual Review if we so require it and if we feel we need it. That is a separate question from the Price Review which will take place within the enlarged Community.

Sir F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend was good enough to mention Gibraltar, whose interests are obviously very much affected. I wonder if he could say a word about some other smaller territories in Europe, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and clarify what is causing considerable anxiety, and that is, whether they come in—willingly—or whether there is a special position for them or not?

Mr. Rippon: I have had some discussion with representatives of the Channel Islands, but we have not dealt with their position yet.

Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman accepted on behalf of this country the whole substance of the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C. with all its


consequences for this country and without any authority from this House?

Mr. Rippon: I have said we have accepted the common agricultural policy subject to points which we wish to raise during negotiations.

Mr. Peter Mills: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the progress made as regards agriculture, may I ask him, while bearing in mind that many of us in agriculture feel we shall do very well in the Common Market, to allay one serious fear, that we could carry out the rules and regulations from Brussels when other countries tend not to sometimes?

Mr. Rippon: I am sure that we shall behave properly and I am sure that our new partners will do so, also. I concur with what my hon. Friend said about the likely benefits to agricultural producers in this country.

Mr. Mackintosh: While I think everybody who supports, and even those who are opposed to, entry to the Common Market will appreciate the pace and momentum which the right hon. Gentleman has set up, and we all want a speedy conclusion one way or the other, I wonder if he would consider publishing, through his office, some sort of news sheet or briefing sheet which would let us know about how he is progressing and what stages are reached, month by month, because we have to address meetings all over the country on these questions, and regular information of this kind, including the positional papers, would be extremely useful.

Mr. Rippon: Normally, I would be answerable to this House and would make statements in this House, but there are certain circumstances in which it might be proper for the Government to issue, in one form or another, other information, and I do not see why anybody should lack knowledge of what is happening. I would certainly be prepared at any time to answer questions put to me by hon. Members in this House or in letters.

Mr. Jopling: To what extent has my right hon. Friend made progress, in offsetting any trend in our balance of payments, in finding new ways in which the

Community could help us with projects for regional development?

Mr. Rippon: The Community is very concerned about matters of regional development. We have not got down in detail to discussions of the contribution which we can make to the Community's budget or the way in which those matters will be dealt with. Certainly we all envisage that within the framework of the Community there are great possibilities for improving regional development policies.

Mr. Barnes: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say something about the attitude of the Community towards British estimates of the cost of entry? Is it not the case that while our estimates may represent a good bargaining position they are definitely on the high side?

Mr. Rippon: When it comes to matters of estimates as to what will happen in 1978 there is certainly room for some discussion. We have put forward what appeared to be, in terms of the White Paper produced by the previous Government, a fair assessment of what might happen, on certain assumptions. The Commission is now considering that and, I believe, preparing papers which it is putting to the Council of Ministers. We shall see its observations and at the end of the day we will have to find a solution which represents a fair balance between the Community and the new applicants.

Mr. Emery: While wishing my right hon. and learned Friend fair speed, may I ask, following a question from the other side of the House about negotiations going on inside the Community, for information about the work of the committees? Fisheries was mentioned but there are four or five committees working. Have any steps been taken to enable us to participate in these negotiations, perhaps only as observers, so that we can travel in parallel with what the Community is negotiating?

Mr. Rippon: Sometimes we play about with whether or not we ought to have consultation or discussions, or be informed. In practice there is now developing the good habit of communicating with one another in the appropriate ways so that we know what is happening. As I said, the important thing is that neither party should prejudice the success


of the negotiations by taking unnecessary action in the negotiating period. I hope that we will keep the negotiating period as short as possible so as to remove these uncertainties altogether.

Mr. Barnett: Could the Minister say on this question of fairness, whether during the course of negotiations, after the end of the Common Market's own transitional period in 1977, he is hoping to change our contribution to the fund?

Mr. Rippon: We shall have to see how our discussions go on what is a fair contribution to make to the various funds of the Community.

Mr. Adley: Would the Minister accept that some of us on this side who are basically pro-European are a little perturbed that some countries would seek to judge us as good Europeans by our willingness or otherwise to accept their conditions as to which aircraft consortia should proceed and which should not while they at the same time refrain from membership of N.A.T.O. and still manage to call themselves good Europeans?

Mr. Rippon: These are not matters arising out of the negotiations which I am conducting. I hope that in all these matters we shall show ourselves to be good Europeans.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Dealing with the six-year transitional period for agriculture, did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say in answer to a previous question that he has no objection in principle to reducing that period? Moreover, would he suggest to the Leader of the House that it is now high time for a further test of opinion in this House on this vitally important matter?

Mr. Rippon: As to the period, we have put forward our propositions and we think they are fair and reasonable. In negotiations with friends and allies we must be willing to listen to their points of view. We hope that that will be the basis of our discussions in the months ahead.

Sir T. Beamish: Since such an encouraging start has been made and since my right hon. and learned Friend has said he would like to keep the negotiations as short as possible, may I ask whether

it is too early to say whether he has any time scale in mind?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think we can have a fixed time scale when we are dealing with matters so vital to our interests and European interests. What I have indicated is that I believe, and I think my colleagues in the Community accept this, that we should break the back of the negotiations by the middle of next summer, leaving only a few odds and ends, like deciding where we shall sign the Treaty to be cleared up by the 1st January of the following year.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Rippon: That should be our objective. Clearly we all hope that these negotiations will be successful. That is the purpose of entering into them. I also think it is important that no one should have occasion to say that the negotiations were interminable.

Mr. Sheldon: Does the Minister consider that all the economic consequences of entry can be settled within the context of transitional arrangements alone?

Mr. Rippon: No. There are matters, and I spoke of them earlier in relation to New Zealand dairy produce and the sugar-producing territories, where transitional arrangements may not be sufficient and where we may have to look for other arrangements. In other cases the problems must be considered on their merits and not just dealt with by transitional arrangements, for example, whether and how we maintain free port facilities at Gibraltar.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend has said he has put forward fair and reasonable proposals. As these were in writing and as they are now historic because they have been studied by the other side, is there any reason why this House should not see those proposals? Secondly, in relation to the fact finding reports which have been taking place, as they deal with facts is there any reason why those too should not be seen by this House? Surely there is no secret in all this?

Mr. Rippon: There is no secret in the sense that my hon. Friend can put any questions he wants to me and I will do my best to answer them. What I do not think will be appropriate would be to


make public all the documents involved in what are traditionally confidential negotiations.

Mr. Shore: Is the Minister aware that he has made an appalling, smug and at times even flippant statement? Has he not even mentioned the report of the Werner Committee and the very important matters covered by that report in his recent visit to Europe? If he has not done so, surely he plans to bring this within the ambit of entry discussions? If he does bring it within that ambit, I hope he will make clear that we have no intention at all of accepting permanent exchange rates at existing parities or any moves towards a common currency.

Mr. Rippon: In my statement today I could deal only with the matters about which I have been negotiating in the last few weeks and particularly the subjects dealt with at Luxembourg on Tuesday. Of course the issues raised by the Werner Report are of great importance to us. They are not directly matters for negotiation as such but certainly there will be discussions, and I would imagine discussions in depth, about the implications for the future. The matters which we raise in relation to economic and monetary integration are not for tomorrow, they are matters which will arise when we are members of the Community—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and therefore in a position to express a view.
We have said, and I should make this clear, that we have no objection to the long term objectives which the Community has in mind. In these matters we are prepared to go as far and as fast as they are. All this will take a very long time and there may be great disagreements about the ultimate form and the steps by which we proceed to those objectives.

Mr. Pentland: On a point of order. The Minister has just made a very important statement and more or less changed the issue. This afternoon at Question Time the Prime Minister informed me that the political and constitutional issues involved in these negotiations were nonexistent because they were not being negotiated at present. Now the Minister is saying that he has given an indication in Europe that we are prepared to go all the way on these issues. Is it not a fact

then that the political and constitutional issues are very much involved in the negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: Mr. Rippon rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That was most ingenious, but it is not a point of order. The Minister may answer if he wishes.

Mr. Rippon: With respect, those are not matters for negotiation. What we are concerned with in the negotiations is how we deal with the problems that will arise on entry, that is the impact effects of our joining the Community. When we are full members of the Community we will have all the opportunities that other members—[HON. MEMBERS: "If".]—I said that I assumed the success of these negotiations. If they fail then these problems will not arise and that would be a pity for us all. But that is by the way. When, or if, we are whole members of the Community, we would have all the opportunities that other members have to express our points of view. Experience has shown that the Community does not move except when it is satisfied that the vital interests of all the member countries are safeguarded.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of our consistently favourable trade balance and other important ties with Australia, will my right hon. and learned Friend, who has shown proper concern for the Commonwealth, tell the Community of the very deep concern here lest we should be compelled to turn preferential trading with Australia into discrimination against her? May I ask him not to give the impression that we will put up with anything?

Mr. Rippon: We have certainly made what the Community regard at the moment as quite a severe demand on it. We have certainly not confined ourselves to putting forward a defence of our interests. We have said that we are deeply concerned about the way in which changes of this character would affect, in the short term certainly, the interests of traditional suppliers, particularly in the Commonwealth. That is one of the main purposes of the transitional period and the transitional arrangements. We have also said that we would expect that an enlarged Community of 10 would be very outward-looking and liberal in its trading arrangements with the rest of the world.

Mr. Albu: While welcoming what the Minister has said about the arrangements he has been able to make for the dependent territories, would he confirm that associate status is available for the developing countries of the Commonwealth, particularly Africa?

Mr. Rippon: We have not dealt with that yet. The position of the developing countries and the newly independent countries will be considered separately. There is no reason to suppose that this will be unsympathetically considered by the Community. This is of particular importance in the case of the sugar producing countries but there are a lot of other problems to be considered in relation to other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Wilkinson: In view of my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley), could he give a categoric assurance that future British civil aviation projects will not, either covertly or overtly, become a bargaining counter in the current negotiations?

Mr. Rippon: I do not think that that is a matter which arises out of the statement I have made.

Mr. James Johnson: Would the Minister be a little more candid, I will not say more honest, in his statement about the discussions on fisheries? Is it not a fact that the Six met in Luxembourg a fortnight ago and fixed a Common Market fisheries policy to which we, Norway, Denmark and Ireland must adhere if there is a successful ending to these negotiations? What is he discussing about fisheries at the moment? How far has he committed us? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this is causing enormous anxiety in our fishing ports, particularly in Hull?

Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that this is causing anxiety not only here but in Norway and we have made representations to the Community about it. I am sure that it is important, while these negotiations are going on, that proper regard should be had for the interests of applicant countries.

Mr. McBride: Is the Minister aware that the introduction of a system of import levies by this country is held by Australia and New Zealand to be an adaptation to meet the requirements of the common agricultural policy of the Community and is also held by those countries to be a stab in the back? Will he remember that in peace and war cheap food has always been available to us particularly from New Zealand but also from Australia? Will he give the House and country an assurance that nothing will be done or agreed to that will hinder the free flow of food imports from those countries? Does he not consider that any other course would be a deliberate act of sabotage directed towards the economies of those two countries?

Mr. Rippon: Trading patterns and trading agreements change all the time. When the changes are made, we must consider their impact on all concerned. That is a major matter of concern in these negotiations. We are conscious of the hon. Gentleman's points and of the anxieties, sometimes very great, which rightly or wrongly are felt within the Commonwealth. We made it clear in the course of our General Election campaign that we had in mind making changes in agricultural support policy, whether or not we joined the Common Market.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the debate on coal.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Francis Pym.]

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: In the novel situation in which I find myself perhaps the House will permit me one personal comment. If I say at the beginning that I have waited a long time to get here, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I am referring to the events of this afternoon and not to any preceding events.
I am a Socialist, and much of the faith and philosophy that I have been taught I have learned from miners, especially Welsh miners. In view of that, it is a special privilege for me to speak, as I shall seek to do, on behalf of our mining community.
Immediately after the General Election, Questions were put to some of our new Ministers about the coal industry in the weeks when Parliament met before the Summer Recess. Questions were put to them in very polite terms about the Coal Industry Bill, seeking to discover the intentions of the new Government. Several of my hon. Friends who represent mining constituencies put those Questions, and I am sure that the Government could have had no objection to the manner in which they were put. On this occasion, partly because of some intervening events and partly because, so far, we have had no answers from the Government, the questions may be put in a rather more peremptory manner.
In the few weeks alter the new Government were installed, some people were inclined, in a charitable frame of mind—I, for one, always like to take a charitable view whenever possible—to suggest that the new Government were looking round to see what the situation was and should be given some period of grace, in this matter and in others. It was suggested in

some quarters that that seemed to be happening in some Departments during the weeks and months after the new Government were installed and that there was what might be described as a dawning suspicion amongst the leaders of the Flat Earth Society that perhaps the place was round after all. That seemed to be the indication of what they thought as they looked at the new world. However, Tuesday's events have put an end to any such charitable thought. The flat earthers and worse are in full command, and we saw them in operation on Tuesday.
Later, I shall seek to make some references which carry the debate further, but when we originally thought of debating the coal industry on this occasion it was because we believed that one of the first matters to which the Government should apply themselves was the situation in the coal industry. So far, we have had no indication that they have done so in any sense which can be helpful.
The country has just escaped by the narrowest margin what undoubtedly would have been a catastrophe in the shape of a great national coal strike. It almost happened. We might almost be assembling at the moment facing the most serious industrial situation that this country has had to confront for many years. It might be said that the country has escaped that difficulty not through any action of the Government but solely because of what might be called a freak clause in the constitution of the National Union of Mineworkers.
If the situation had been that the National Union of Mineworkers required only a majority vote to decide whether to have a national strike—that is to say, if its constitution had contained the provision about ballots for strikes which the Government suggest will be incorporated in their legislation, if we ever reach it—the headlines reporting the result of the ballot would have been very different. Instead of saying that the miners had voted against a national strike, the newspapers would have told how there had been a massive vote of the miners in favour of industrial action of a most serious character.
Every hon. Member knows the reason why it would have been most serious. It is because the demand for coal is stronger than it has been for many years. If there


had been a national coal strike in such a situation, it would have led to the most serious industrial problem that this country has had to face for many years. Perhaps I might say, by the way, that I think that what has happened will knock any ballot provisions out of the Government's proposed legislation. I do not think that they are likely to pursue that proposal after the lesson that they have learned—if they learn lessons.
More serious than that, we have, as the National Coal Board has had, to consider why such a massive majority of our miners voted in favour of strike action. In South Wales 83 per cent. voted in that way, and that represents pretty well every man working underground. We should bear in mind that they took that decision not long before Christmas, which is not an easy time to have a ballot among some of our lowest-paid people to decide whether to go on strike. Why? The question cannot be answered solely in terms of what has occurred over the last few weeks or months. It goes back over years. I will not relate the full history, but certainly I must look back over a short period, because this desperate situation will occur again if this House is not awakened to the seriousness of the situation. It is one which has been accumulating over the years.
The coal industry has carried through one of the most awkward but remarkable transformations in modern industrial history. It is a painful process for a great industry and a great trade union to co-operate in reducing the scale of the industry. It could never have been done if it had not been nationalised. It could never have been done without substantial financial aid from the Government, which the previous Government gave in some measure. It could never have been done without superhuman restraint and patience on the part of the miners.
That patience has worn desperately thin. I think that it was partly because Lord Robens as Chairman of the Coal Board understood by the demonstration of that ballot how thin the patience had become, justifiably, that he agreed to make a fresh offer even beyond the final offer that he had made before. He was wise to do it. He has learned something from the strength of the expression of opinion by the miners. Whether he has learned enough, we still do not know. What will

happen in the coalfields in the next few weeks and months depends on whether he has learned enough.
We want to discover from this debate whether the Government have learned enough. We want to know what the Government say about the Coal Industry Bill. We want the Bill, the whole Bill, and a little more than the Bill. We want the Bill because it was promised to the industry. We want it because it is essential and because, apart from the basis that it provides for one of the country's fundamental industries, it also deals with what is to happen to people living in areas of heavy unemployment who, through no fault of their own, lose their jobs in their late 50s. We want a little more than the Bill, and the miners' union has some Amendments which we propose to table to strengthen the Bill in some respects.
Let the Government assure us that we shall have the Bill, the whole Bill, and somewhat more than the Bill. That is what the Government have to do if they want to show that they have any appreciation of the events of the last few weeks. That is how the Government can indicate that they understand the meaning of the miners' ballot.
We should also like to see the Government, either in the Bill or in some other Measure, giving proper answers to the suggestions which the National Union of Mineworkers has made to the Minister in his recent discussions with its representatives about fresh arrangements for the capital reconstruction of the industry. That is another way in which the Government can show that they have some understanding of what has occurred.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a great deal to wipe away from the opposite side of the ledger. Perhaps we shall be told in the course of the debate what the spokesman for the mining industry in the Cabinet—if there is one—said to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister before the Government's package was introduced on Tuesday. What representations were made to the Government on this matter? Of course, these measures hit working people up and down the country, but in some respects they hit mining communities and mining families even more than anyone else. I do not say that there are not others in similar


situations, but no section of the community is hit harder and more fiercely by the measures introduced on Tuesday than the miners and their families.
The miners and their families are hit by the increased charges for school meals. The miners and their families are hit by the withdrawal of the subsidy for milk. The miners and their families will be hit by the increases in council rents. The miners and their families are hit by the health charges, the dental charges and the ophthalmic charges. The miners and their families will be hit by the increase in the prescription charge from 2s. 6d. to 4s.
It is no accident that the idea of a free National Health Service, free to the patient, was born and nurtured in mining valleys. No one on the Government side understands that. They may say that there are some sinners on this side of the House. They may say that a prescription charge was imposed by a Government composed of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. I was very sad on the tragic day when it was done. It was indeed a tragic day, partly because of the act itself, but partly because right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite kicked open the door which we opened. But I say this for my right hon. and hon. Friends. They did it with a grim reluctance. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did it with a ghoulish relish. If they had any distant inkling of what the National Health Service means to miners, no Minister would ever have come to that Dispatch Box and introduced increases in prescription charges in the manner it was done on Tuesday.
The miners and their families—this, in my judgment, is the most contemptible cut of all—are hit by the withdrawal of the benefit of the three waiting days. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may say again that there were some on this side who made the proposal. That is perfectly true. But it was brought to discussion by hon. Members on this side of the House, headed by the miners, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and others, and the proposal was smashed. That is what Parliament is for—to have discussions on these matters. No Labour Government, no

Labour Minister, would ever introduce that proposition again.
No right hon. or hon. Member opposite will speak for the miners. They will not have a meeting of the 1922 Committee to discuss the waiting period benefit. They think that it is a joke.
I find something beyond the normal bounds of politics in the indecency of this proposition. I wonder exactly how it happened. I suppose that some top civil servant picked this miserable proposal out of a pigeon-hole and put it on the Chancellor's desk. I do not think that this top civil servant, whoever did it, should be excused from criticism in these matters, particularly as one of the first acts of this Government in their incomes policy was to approve the raising of the salaries of top civil servants to £14,000 a year starting on 1st January—the time when the waiting period benefit will be abolished. One of this Government's first acts was approving an extra £30 or £40 a week for top civil servants.
If this House votes for the abolition of the three waiting days' benefit, it will have been done from start to finish by people who are not affected by a waiting period at all—not the civil servants, the politicians, nor the people who administer it. There could not be a more sadistically devised piece of anti-working class surgery than that which says, "We will introduce a Measure to take benefits away from people who work with their hands, and it will be done by people who never have to bother whether they get sickness benefit from the very day that it starts." If this House dares to pass such a proposition, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, now that he has heard about the feeling in mining valleys on some of these subjects, will go back to the Cabinat and secure the same reversal of this proposition as we secured when a Labour Government were in office.
To emphasise the situation I have itemised those items in the Tuesday package which will hit mining families. I say to the right hon. Gentleman absolutely seriously that if that change had been announced before the miners' ballot, the country would now be facing a national strike. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen must not think that they have escaped. Indeed, they have gravely worsened the


situation, because, within a few months—at any rate, by next year—we shall have a repetition of this situation in the mining industry.
During this period miners have watched their situation declining compared with many other sections of the community—not only the top civil servants or the chairmen of the boards, but others as well. I hope that the Government will take serious warning from this debate. We, as a Labour Opposition, are seeking in this debate to prevent the catastrophe of a national coal strike. If the Government are to prevent it, they will have to withdraw several of the measures that were introduced on Tuesday and they will have to show a very different attitude to the industry from that which we have had from any Conservative Government in generations gone by.
I turn now to another aspect of the matter: the welfare of these industries as servants of the nation, public services, which figured prominently in the General Election. One of the most extraordinary utterances that I have ever heard in my experience in the House of Commons was the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday when he said that we must not pay too much attention to what the Prime Minister said in his statement two days before the election, because that has now been superseded.
I have a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I went to the Library to make sure that I got my copy. One has to get them fast. There may be some plan to burn them. If the Leader of the House were here I would appeal to him. I think that we shall have to appeal to the Leader of the House on many occasions to help us out of difficulties with this ramshackle Administration. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether he would be good enough to place in the Library copies of all the Prime Minister's pre-election speeches which have now been withdrawn. If, alternatively, the right hon. Gentleman would find it easier to place in the Library copies of those speeches which are still in existence and still accepted by the Government, that course would be equally convenient. One block might be stamped, "Man of Principle", and the other block, "Ever been had?". Let us have this matter sorted out now before these documents become very rare. I can

assure the right hon. Gentleman that they deal with a matter on which he has been extremely eloquent in other places.
The superseded, withdrawn, statement of the Prime Minister, as reported in The Times of 17th June 1970, has been referred to previously in this House, but I want to get these matters absolutely clear as they deal with some of the questions that we are discussing today. Having outlined what the Prime Minister then thought was the economic situation, he went on:
But there is a very real alternative which ought to be pursued immediately. That alternative is to break into the price/wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices.
That has been quoted in the House before, but it is worth repeating. It goes on:
This can be done by reducing those taxes which bear directly on prices and costs, such as the selective employment tax"—
it would be indelicate for me to pursue that subject; I do not want to have any demarcation disputes with my colleagues on this side of the House—
and by taking"—
this is the Prime Minister—
a firm grip on public sector prices and charges such as coal, steel, gas, electricity, transport charges and postal charges".
If any hon. Member opposite visits his constituency this weekend and is asked what is happening to coal prices, steel prices, gas prices, electricity prices, transport charges and postal charges, all that he has to say is that the Prime Minister has a firm grip on them.
If there are any commuters going home this afternoon who believe what they read in those Socialist newspapers the Evening News and Standard, and are anxious about their fares, let me relieve their anxieties altogether. I am sure that this will send them all home happy tonight. I can tell them that Ted has his firm grip on their fares—as tight as a sailor's knot. [Laughter.] It is not really so funny, because that is how they got elected. It is no good trying to withdraw it now by chicanery, by sleight of hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who pretended that this document is no longer to be quoted.
There is a very serious aspect to the matter now. I am not arguing that it is wrong to raise coal prices, or steel prices, or many of the other charges that are


listed there. I think that an increase in those prices in many cases is unavoidable but, if it is unavoidable, one does not say two days before an election that one is going to avoid it.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman not authorising the increases? Is he not encouraging them?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been following what I have been saying, and I am sure that it would take much too long for me to try to alter that situation.
As far as I know, no hon. Member on this side of the House has argued that one can do what the Prime Minister said he was going to do, and that is to reduce prices in the public sector, but I do say that the atttiude of the Conservative Party to this question is motivated by its antagonism to the public sector, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that they could win power by telling people that the publicly-owned industries of coal, gas and steel were inefficient industries needing all the assistance of private enterprise, and the sanctions of private enterprise, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the Conservative conference.
I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman tests efficiency in his sector of industry. Some people think that productivity is quite a good test, and the miners cannot be convicted on that basis. It is true that in 1969 productivity in the mining industry went up by only 4 per cent., and admittedly that was down on the 8 per cent. or more of the previous year, but, even so, it was twice as good as the productivity rate in the private sector.
The spite of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite against publicly-owned industries is so deep that they thought they would be able to make a satisfactory bid for power by putting all the blame, or a large part of the blame, for rising prices upon inefficiency in the public sector, but this is untrue by any major test which can be made.
When they came to power, either through their flippant disregard for the pledges they had made, or because they had discovered the truth that they could not keep down prices that way, they decided, maybe—we do not know for certain yet—that they would try to deal

with the public sector which they detest so much by a somewhat different method. Rumours are now floating through Whitehall, Fleet Street and round about, about how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to apply his principles to the coal industry, the steel industry and some of the others and that, thwarted in the attempt to deal with them by acting against high prices, as the right hon. Gentleman said before the election, the Government are now determined to try to hive off different parts of these industries and sell them to those people who are willing to buy them or to invest in them.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to repudiate all such suggestions. He will not do it in the coal industry. He could not do it in the steel industry. If he is contemplating any such measure, I hope that he will tell us during the debate what consultations he proposes to have with those who work in the coal industry, the steel industry, the gas industry or any of them before he decides to hive off any part of a publicly-owned industry. I ask him to do that because the people who work in those industries have something to say about them, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends think that having inflicted what they did on the miners on Tuesday they can come along and pile on top of all that proposals for carving up nationalised industries to suit their own dogmas, without any consultations with the people who produce coal, steel and all the other goods, they will only add to the angry, fierce times that lie ahead for this country if they continue along this course.
I hope that the whole House will be prepared in this debate, perhaps better than it has done in some previous debates, to listen to what the miners have to say, and to what those who speak for the miners have to say. It has usually been very misguided for this country to neglect what the miners say. If this country had listened to the miners a bit more in the early twenties, we might have avoided the national catastrophe of what happened in the later 'twenties. If we had been prepared to listen to the miners much earlier, we could have transformed the situation in the industry much earlier, and if many hon. Members in this House, including hon. Members on my side, had been prepared to listen to what the miners had to say during the debate on the last fuel White Paper some of


the difficulties of the present time could have been avoided. Who has been proved right by the present indications of the demand for coal and the price of other fuels?

Sir Gerald Nabarro: We have.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself in this matter.

Sir G. Nabarro: I shall.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be rallying any support from any other quarter.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I congratulate him on his novel position. Perhaps before he resumes his seat he will remind the coal miners sitting behind them that their coal industry is protected by £100 million of the taxpayers' money levied on fuel oil to protect the mining industry against the ravages of oil competition.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman had listened a bit more carefully earlier on, he would have heard me say that we believe that all the protections and plans for Government assistance which are provided for the coal industry at present should be sustained.

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not.

Mr. Foot: I understand that, but the hon. Gentleman must get used to the fact that he is in a minority of one. We are insisting that the miners and the mining community should, in the interests of the nation as a whole, keep the protections which they have. I say to the right hon. Gentleman and his Government that if, after the events of Tuesday, and recent months and years, they come forward with proposals which carry out what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, they will only add fuel to the industrial flames.
That brings me to the last thing that I want to say. When I look at the whole series of Measures which the Government are introducing, such as their Industrial Relations Bill, bitterly hated by the mass of trade unionists up and down the country; the attitude which they display towards the sewerage strike today and the complacent paralysis with which they approach these great national problems;

the whole series of other Measures which we have had, and in particular the Measures which I have itemised and which hit the mining community, I sometimes wonder whether hon. Members opposite really have any understanding of what hot industrial fires they are playing with and whether they understand what deep fissures they are driving into our society, at a time when we in this country, of all countries, should be showing how violent tensions can be relieved without violence. That is what we should be trying to show. If hon. Members opposite think that they contributed to that during this past week, they are making a very serious mistake indeed—serious not only for them but for the country as well.
People sometimes say that every Parliament is a different Parliament, and that is naturally the case. When I look across at the benches opposite, not only at the Front Bench but at those behind, it seems to me very often that what they speak for is a narrow, blinkered, suburban—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is the majority of the electorate.

Mr. Foot: What they speak for is a narrow, blinkered, suburban England with no conception whatsoever of industrial Britain—no conception of industrial England, let alone industrial Scotland or industrial Wales. Industrial Scotland and industrial Wales gave their verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's party 50 years ago, and we have not had any evidence which has called upon us to reverse the judgment. When I look across, I see a Government and a party of third-rate business men who cannot understand anything but a balance sheet. Britain and the industrial health of Britain are concerned much more with other things than balance sheets. They are concerned with how people are going to be treated, including the miners. We have had a full taste of it this week, with promises of more to come.
I say to right hon. Gentlemen opposite: if they cannot appreciate how deep is the gulf that they are now digging in this society, if they cannot have any understanding of it, they will be fought inch by inch in this House and in the country, because it is only by their removal that we shall be able to re-establish the attempt


at the difficult and painful art of humane and civilised government. We have had enough from them this week to show us that we shall never get that.

5.35 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With some diffidence because of my own novice state in this place, I feel that I should congratulate the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) on what I believe has been his first appearance as a Front Bench spokesman for his party. He seems not to have served a good apprenticeship by sticking to the point.
I was surprised to take up the Order Paper and see the proposed subject for debate by the Opposition—coal. Not a great deal has been said about coal this evening. I, on the contrary, welcome the opportunity that this debate gives to have a good look at the present conditions and the future prospects of this great industry.
It is natural that we should have these matters at heart. All of us are concerned with an industry which means so much to us economically. All of us are deeply aware of the special considerations which affect the men who work in it. Coal is 50 per cent. of our energy. The steel and electricity industries are all critically dependent upon it. It accounts for £670 million of our national assets; 350,000 men work in it, and 285,000 of them are miners.
I welcome the opportunity particularly because I shall shortly be publishing the terms of the Coal Industry Bill, which must be framed to take account of the present circumstances of the industry and its future potential. This Bill is, like its predecessor, designed to temper the effects of the contraction of the industry on miners and their families after the existing powers expire at the end of March next year. I do not propose to anticipate the Second Reading of that Bill, and I must ask hon. Members to await its publication. What I will say is that we shall be generous in our proposals to assist those affected by the contraction of this industry.
Someone—I am not sure that I remember who, but hon. Members opposite may well recall it better than I—said that

"only a fool could arrange a situation where we became short of coal when these islands are built on it". But that, in fact, is just what we have done. That was the condition we found when we took office.
A few years ago, there was an embarrassing surplus of coal, but this has swung in a remarkably short time to a much more difficult problem of shortages. I do not wish to be unfair about it. There are always uncertainties about future energy supplies, forecasts can often turn out to be mere mirages, and it is seldom difficult to discover with hindsight what things went wrong.
Whatever the cause, we found ourselves confronting a difficult fuel prospect in the short term. The electricity generating industry was engaged in a major operation to overcome arrears of maintenance and to secure satisfactory working from its new plant. The coal industry was going through a difficult patch, with consumption well above the level of output. The previously highly creditable increase in productivity had fallen away, and the industry's basic reserves had fallen by no less than 11 million tons from the previous year.
The supply of solid smokeless fuels for houses, hospitals, schools and so on was causing anxiety, and there was great fear that progress towards cleaner air was in jeopardy. The pressure of demand for oil was building up throughout the world. Since we came into ffice, we have been engaged in an examination of the situation with a view to charting the course for the future.
Frankly, the outlook for the winter is not as good as I should wish to see it. Distributed stocks of coal are, roughly, at the normal level for the time of the year, except that power stations have less coal in hand than the authorities concerned would regard as desirable. The Coal Board's undistributed stocks are, however, now down to about 9 million tons, and this is worryingly low. I hope that we shall get by. The National Coal Board has assured me that this is possible if full output is maintained and the arrangements for distributing coal are fully and efficiently used. But we shall be operating on narrow margins, and exceptionally severe weather or other untoward events could lead to trouble later in the winter.
The House knows of the efforts which have been made over the past few months to ease the shortage of solid smokeless fuels in the domestic market. Here, too, however, the balance is very fine, and local shortages are only too probable.
The coking coal supply position also is in a state of delicate balance. This is a world-wide problem. The National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation are collaborating on measures to ensure supplies for the immediate future and also in the longer term. Our own reserves of suitable coals are dwindling and the scope for increasing supplies is limited. The decision to convert the power station at Richborough from coal to oil firing will enable coking coal from the Kent coalfield to be made available to the steel industry. This will provide up to 1 million tons a year more coal for coke ovens and will help to ensure the future employment of the Kent miners. Opencast coal mining also can contribute to the supply of coking coal, and the need for this fuel will be a factor in considering applications for approval to work opencast sites.
The dominant feature of the energy scene since 1950 has been the steady decline of coal demand—200 million tons and 90 per cent. of the energy market in 1950; 160 million tons and 50 per cent. in 1969—and, on the other side, the growth of oil—22 million tons coal equivalent and 10 per cent. of the energy market in 1950; 135 million tons and over 40 per cent. in 1969. This trend, which is common to all Western Europe, reflects in the main, the convenience and price advantage of oil.
The character of the coal industry has changed radically over the last decade. The number of pits has fallen from 700 to about 300; and the number of miners has halved from 600,000 to less than 300,000. The markets supplied by coal also have greatly changed. The railway market has gone, and the gas industry's requirements are fast disappearing. The industrial and domestic markets have each fallen by about 40 per cent. Coke ovens still remain an important outlet. The outstanding feature of the change has been the growth in demand for coal for power stations, which has increased from about a quarter to nearly a half of the total output.
These changes have, however, been accompanied by a massive technological transformation of the industry, with the virtually complete mechanisation of coalface operations. As a result, the industry has achieved an impressive record of increased productivity. In the last 10 years, output per manshift has risen from 28 cwts. to 44·4 cwts. today, an increase of 59 per cent. or an average of 4¾ per cent. a year. The rises were particularly impressive in 1967–68 and 1968–69, when they were 6·5 per cent. and 9·0 per cent. respectively. Unfortunately, the rate of productivity increase then slackened. It was only 2·2 per cent. in 1969–70, though it has been 2·8 per cent. so far this year. These are, I think the correct figures, not the figure of 4 per cent. given by the hon. Gentleman.
The cost of coal inevitably rose, but demand remained buoyant and consumption in the past year has been 12 million tons above production. A number of factors are boosting the demand for coal. The difficulties experienced with Magnox reactors have required the use of extra coal in conventional stations. The difficulties with the new large electricity generating sets and delays in the construction of new power stations have required a much greater use than expected to be made of the old generating stations which have a lower thermal efficiency than modern stations.
Over the year as a whole, these and other factors may have added several million tons more to coal demand by power stations. Moreover, coal carbonising gasworks have been deliberately kept in use to aid in meeting the shortage of solid smokeless fuel. Extra coal consumption for this purpose in the current year is running at about ¼ million tons a year.
In addition, last winter was the third of a series of winters when average temperatures have been below normal, so that coal consumption last winter may have been about 1 million tons higher than it would have been had we experienced average weather.
Thus, while the progress in coal productivity has slowed, there has been a fortuitous combination of circumstances which have put great pressures on demand. This is not a situation which can be expected to continue.
The key to the future rests on the resumption of productivity increases which will enable the coal industry to compete in price with other fuels, and supply its customers with the quantities of coal they require. Lord Robens has said that machines are cutting coal, on average, for about 2¼ hours a shift only. An additional quarter-hour would increase production by 35 tons a shift, equivalent to £75 million worth of coal a year. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance for the future prosperity of the industry and the interests of consumers that the unions' promised co-operation should result in a real increase in productivity.
I come to the very topical question of wages and prices. My understanding is that the National Coal Board has made a new offer to the National Union of Mineworkers on the basis of approximately a 12 per cent. addition to the board's wages bill, an increase of some 2 per cent. over the offer made earlier. I understand, too, that this new offer is to be the subject of a further ballot amongst the mineworkers.
I referred earlier to the rate of productivity attained in recent times—2·2 per cent. in 1969–70 and some 2·8 per cent. in the current year. It follows that the earlier offer of 10 per cent. was already about four times greater than the going level of productivity and might be considered generous in all the circumstances. The further increase in the offer simply serves to underline this disparity—not, however, peculiar to the coal industry.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Before he completes—or halfcompletes—the story which he is telling about the reduction in overall productivity increase, will the right hon. Gentleman add that it was forecast in 1967, when we were at the height of the move towards increasing modernisation, that by 1971 the rise in productivity overall would automatically slacken off because we should then reach nearly 100 per cent. power loading at the coalfaces?

Mr. Davies: This may have been the case. I could not answer to that. I can say, however, that the chairman of the board has expressed to me the belief that a continuing rate of productivity of the

order formerly attained is well within the reach of the industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: There are two sides to this equation. It is perfectly correct to talk about miners increasing their productivity. We all know about that. But it would also be apposite to ask the Central Electricity Generating Board, which consumes almost half of all the coal mined in this country, to improve its thermal efficiency, because in the past year it remained almost static at the same level of efficiency as in the year before.

Mr. Davies: I have referred to this question already, when I spoke of the considerable difficulties the Generating Board has been through. It is doing a very manful job in seeking to get through the difficulties with which it has been faced.
The evidence which I have been adducing simply serves to establish once again that we are continuing to witness wage and salary settlements which grossly out-distance productivity. Does the country realise that it just cannot have at one and the same time excessive wage settlements and stability in prices? Does it realise that going on this way simply ensures cost inflation of a kind that is bound to damage our export prospects, reduce the competitive capacity of the product and jeopardise jobs in this and other industries? As far as coal is concerned, the inevitable consequence is a rise in prices, and that rise must now take place. The N.C.B. has put in for a 16 per cent. jacking-up in the price of general purposes coal—namely, the fuel which industry burns and which produces electricity. I have no alternative but to accept that increase.
Finally, if our economy is to prosper, coal, like every other industry, must pay its way. I refute absolutely the remarks of the hon. Gentleman that the Government are out of sympathy with the nationalised industries. That is utterly incorrect. The Government seek by all means to put these great industries in a position of prosperity and profit-earning which they have so sadly been left not to attain. The truth is that we are faced with nationalised industries in series with great outstanding deficits, with quite inadequate profit levels to sustain their development. We believe that only by attaining those profit levels can they in


the end be a part of the great industrial prosperity of this country. To call that indifference and calumny is utterly ridiculous.

Mr. John Golding: At some time during the debate we should like clarification on the productivity figures. The N.C.B. report gives a figure of increase of 4 per cent. of saleable output a man-shift, including a 12·7 per cent increase in Staffordshire. Why is that now opposed? If there is such concern for the nationalised industries, why was investment in them cut on Tuesday without any explanation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman will find that his interventions will always be more effective if they are brief.

Mr. Davies: I am sure that the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman will receive their answer later in the debate.

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon): Mr. John Morris (Aberavon) rose—

Mr. Davies: If the prices of the products of the nationalised industries do not reflect costs, there is a misallocation of resources and the burden falls on the taxpayer. The Government accept that special measures are needed at the moment to help miners and their families who are affected by the rundown of the industry. But in the long run the future of the industry must depend on its basic ability to compete. Coal is vital to our present and future energy supplies. In the present situation all the coal that can be produced can be sold. This situation is likely to last for the next year or so, but, looking further ahead, the future of the industry most certainly depends on its ability to provide the consumer with the coal he requires at competitive prices. In doing so the industry will be consolidating its future: it will be ensuring its ability to recruit the kind of men it needs: it will be guaranteeing them a progressive and constructive career: it will be enhancing the nation's resources. If it fails to achieve this purpose it will have no one but itself to blame.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: In rising to make my maiden speech, I am pleased indeed that the debate is on coal,

because that is the industry in which I have spent all my working life
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) mentioned the lack of working knowledge on the industry in the House. As a working miner of not so long ago, I believe that I have the necessary knowledge to speak in the debate.
This is a vital debate for the industry. It is vital to my constituency of Hamilton and to all the coalfields in Britain, particularly the Scottish coalfields. It is vital, indeed, to the economy of Britain. I hope that a new look will be taken in the debate not only at the industry but, more important, at the people who work in it and those who depend on them.
I am very proud to stand here as the Member for Hamilton following two hard and strenuous election campaigns. Hamilton is not now a purely mining constituency. It has varied industrial potential, and the mining labour force has diminished considerably over the past few years. But there are areas in my constituency which are basically mining communities, both in character and culture.
When one considers the representation my constituency has had since it became a constituency over 50 years ago, the names of Duncan Graham and the Right Hon. Tom Fraser come easily to mind. Tom Fraser spoke from the Front Bench on behalf of the coal industry on many occasions. When I think of my predecessors, I am deeply conscious of the honour bestowed on me and the task before me. My responsibilities towards the miners of Great Britain and towards my constituency are equally great.
Having worked in the coal mines all my working life, I take it for granted that everyone in the House is aware that the industry in Scotland has contracted at an alarming rate over the past few years. It has contracted so alarmingly that huge areas have been left derelict of industry and in some places even denuded of population. It was only because of the efforts of the last Administration that we began to see the light in Scotland. Too many events have caused miners to lose the confidence they should have in their industry. Therefore, the Government should take heed and show a sense of responsibility now when considering the prospects or otherwise of the industry and those who work in it.
The overall fuel needs of the country should be considered as a whole, but, as the main indigenous fuel, coal has the right to be protected and it needs more protection. We have lived too long in Britain on the basis of cheap coal and cheap labour in the coal mines. We should bring in an improvement on the Coal Bill which would have been introduced but for a mistake on 18th June.
It is remarkable that we have contrived a coal shortage in this country. "Contrived" is the word. Although my colleagues in the House repeatedly warned Governments about what would happen, nobody listened to them when they spoke both here and outside about the fuel supply problem that would face us. Events have shown the White Paper of 1967 to have been completely wrong in its estimates. It is up to the House and the new Government to see that the same mistake is not made in the estimates for fuel over the next decade or two.
The recent possibility of a strike has been mentioned. The miners bent over backwards being democratic on this occasion. If they had not had a truly democratic organisation, by this time today the country would have faced a shortage of coal, because we do not have the stocks. There is a serious shortage of coking coal, primarily caused by mistaken estimates resulting in the premature closing of coking coal collieries. But for that lack of foresight we could have had in our possession millions of pounds-worth of coal for export.
This combination of circumstances is already helping to make the miners and their families just that little bit cynical, particularly when appeals are made for a further increase in production. The lessons which the miners have learned have been learned bitterly. The patriotism which they have shown over the years and their acceptance of miserable pittances instead of the increases for which they have applied have finally resulted in their decision over the last two or three weeks to go nearer to the top of the wages table after having dropped from first to sixteenth place.
How are we to tackle the problems of the industry? A number of suggestions will be made from this side of the House and there have been some already. The first and the most im-

portant is that the Government, without delay, should carry out a capital reconstruction of the National Coal Board and the industry. That would take into account the outstanding working profit which has been made in the industry since 1947 on the backs of the miners and it would write off the existing payments of capital made to the former coal owners.
The Government should write off the interest payments and allow the industry to stand on its own feet. It has made a working profit every year without exception since 1947 and this would be clearly apparent if the Government wiped out the capital debt and the loss, which is only a bookkeeping loss. These are some of the factors which have militated against the miners over the last several years as they have attempted to improve working conditions and conditions in their villages and towns. The miners have been robbed because of their patriotism and because of their belief in democracy within their own union.
There are other suggestions which I should like to be bold enough to make in a maiden speech. Everyone should recognise that the miner's job is such that he cannot be expected to be happy, even with the increase offered recently by Lord Robens. Have hon. Members forgotten the arduous nature of the miner's job? Have they forgotten that dangers to life and limb are accepted by the miner as part and parcel of his job whenever he goes down the pit? It is becoming clearer to ordinary people that there are other dangers inherent in the job. There is the near certainty of the development of pneumoconiosis, or what I make so bold as to say are the associated diseases of emphysema and bronchitis. We ought not to consider just pounds, shillings and pence when we discuss what is to be done in the Coal Bill.
Without being presumptuous, may I ask how many hon. Members know the abominable conditions in which some miners work? I feel deeply for those former colleagues of mine, who at this moment are miles below the ground winning coal for industry and for homes.
There are innumerable suggestions to be made when we debate the Coal Bill. A maiden speech must be short and to the point and I will, therefore, not make


them now. I thank the House for listening attentively and patiently to me. For me, this is a vital debate. I hope that, as a result of it, there will quickly develop a new compassion for those who work in the industry and that there will be a new view—or at least a continuation of the view of the last Administration—about the social consequences of pit closures which are the result of the exhaustion of coal seams. The country's fuel resources are such that we can no longer afford to close pits purely on the basis of economics.
A good start would be made if the Coal Board decided to act humanely and to give the miners all the increase for which they have asked. However, that is a matter for the unions and not for hon. Members. I shall be content with some of the suggestions which I have made and which some of my colleagues have made and which I hope the Government will accept in the new Coal Bill so that we may look forward to a stable industry with fair treatment for those who work in it so that coal may take its proper place within the economy of Britain.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I should like warmly to congratulate the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) on one of the most impressive maiden speches to which it has been my pleasure to listen. I can assure him that we shall look forward to hearing him again on a subject about which he clearly feels deeply and about which he has such considerable knowledge.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a coal debate from this side of the House. I had the privilege of winding up from the Opposition side not long ago the Second Reading of the Coal Bill which fell with the dissolution of Parliament. I hope that now that the parties have changed over we can get some sympathetic realism into an industry which was described as totally vital to the country's economy.
The debate is overshadowed to some extent by the very difficult industrial relations situation which now affects the industry. If to that we add our concern about the possibility of shortages during this winter, we can say that the coal

industry today may be facing its greatest crisis ever.
This is a tragedy, because this great industry, upon which we depend so utterly, has been the subject of total surgery over the last six years. My right hon. Friend pointed out the difficulty of energy forecasting, and that is known to all of us. But one of the reasons for the situation in which we now find ourselves is that we have been proposing for the industry targets which were unrealistic almost as soon as they were formed. If a message should go to the coal industry today, it is that there is no target—" Sell what you can; sell what you can competitively with other fuels."
It is incredible that there is an industry which can go from glut to shortage without any period of stability between the two, and this happened within a minute time scale. Only this morning I went to my local coal merchant, who knows me well because I used to have an association with this great industry. I asked him what was the present position and he replied, "Never a day goes by now without some customer rings up and wants to convert to oil or gas."
This is not a very happy situation. The miners might ask themselves how it is that the management of their industry has led them to a situation in which there is a demand for their products that they cannot meet. How often were we told in the past that the coal industry was over-producing and that the switch towards natural gas, nuclear power and other sources of energy would mean that they would have to cut back. Now we find a situation in which they cannot supply their customers.
My right hon. Friend talked about undistributed stocks. An unfortunate fact about that piece of information is that those stocks are not evenly undistributed throughout the country and in some areas there may be sufficient while in others the mixture of mud and coal is such as to be no stock at all. So we face a bitter winter with the industry in this situation.
We also have the problem of the smokeless fuels, a problem which has been discussed many times in the House in recent months. With that, the tragic situation which has arisen is that the


promise to be able to supply the Home-lyre and other proprietary brands of fuel unfortunately falls to the ground.
When we ask ourselves why the industry is in this situation, we have to ask ourselves whether the management has been entirely honest or correct. I am not here accusing the chairman or his colleagues of acting in a dishonest way, but I often wonder whether they had the facts at their fingertips when they made some of their decisions.
This brings me to the point of the wages dispute, which has been bedevilling the industry in recent weeks. I remember going over part of the Yorkshire coalfield six years ago when there was discussion of differentials for face workers and others. The rate of mechanisation and change in the industry has been dramatic and perhaps it is not entirely surprising that some of the differentials which existed ought to be changed. The promise of mechanisation may have been rather higher than actual achievement. We remember the Collins Miner which was to produce coal in record quantities, the Bevercote experiment for the manless pit, the Rolf process which was perhaps too sophisticated for what it was intended to do.
However, the industry has a great deal of capital investment and when I hear my right hon. Friend talking of the use to which this capital investment is put, I believe that this may be an area in which great strides in productivity may be made.
I have never been a miner, and that is no secret to anyone here. For someone built as long as I am it is not the easiest thing in the world. When we come to the differential there is a difference between the man who has studied the coal industry from the length of a pick handle and a man who has studied it from behind the console of a highly sophisticated piece of equipment. In these days it is sad, indeed tragic, that we should see the industry divided unhappily because a wages structure has taken so long to emerge. If we look for blame we could blame management or unions or individuals, or all three.
A rash of strikes in the coal industry will not solve anything but will damage it more than it has already been damaged. We have to face the situation

and the industry has to realise—and I talk here to every individual miner—that its future can be a great one. A damaging strike will accelerate the change to other fuels.
It may be that my right hon. Friend at some point will be able to say that the industry must have a searching and independent inquiry into the whole structure of wages so that the differential which has bedevilled the situation can be resolved once and for all. If strikes break out on a large scale then this winter could be the last winter for the coal industry.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I do not like interrupting a speaker before he has got a full head of steam on, but I would like to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is on a very sticky wicket when he talks about the problem of differentials bedevilling the industry. The lower-paid workers in the mining industry, lower paid in comparison with other industries, have made greater strides with the last two wage increases than any other industry. The miners are conscious of this and they have accepted proportionately bigger increases for the lower-paid men than for the pieceworker. He has come down drastically with the power-loader agreement. This has nothing to do with the situation.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Of course there have been major strides, we all know that. But they have not been made without the greatest difficulty. The situation facing the industry today is grave. There is a tremendous confidence in the industry on this side of the House. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) accused us of being anti-miner, but he is quite wrong. He said that the miners had taught him his Socialism, but they did not seem to have the time to teach him much mining. On this side of the House successive Ministers of Power have built towards a future in which the coal industry can exist. We are now in a time of crisis and a strike in this industry would be disastrous. I appeal to the miners to give the industry, with its high capital investment, with its new, contracted size, an opportunity and not to kill it before it starts.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I welcome this opportunity to take part


in the debate and would like first of all to make reference to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), which did not fail to raise the emotions of those connected with the industry. Many forecasts have been made about the mining industry since I entered the House in 1951. I well remember the expectation by some that the last conventional power station would be put down before 1965. The forecast was that we should require 250 million tons of coal before 1970. All kinds of forecasts have been made about nuclear energy and so on but when people talk about making forecasts in the mining industry they must be careful.
I want to say a few words about my constituency, which is a mining constituency. One part of it is now classed as an intermediate area. It has had pit closures, and it is heartbreaking to see some of the men, not knowing what to do, men between 50 and 60, for whom this is tragic. Realising the vicissitudes they have gone through, it makes me wonder whether we are failing to take into account the social effects on these people.
We have open-cast mining, uprooting some of our beauty spots. However, I must say that the National Coal Board's restoration is first class. When opencast mining was in its infancy some of the restoration was appalling. The Board takes a real interest in seeing that the farmers are satisfied. Living in the coalfields we realise that open-cast mining has to go on. In the last year I believe it made a profit of £7½ million. We realise that the country wants coal and we accept this as a way of life.
My constituency suffers a great deal from mining subsidence. Only recently four young couples came to me complaining that their houses were almost falling down. I had to tell them the story—the country needs the coal and the consequences follow. I pacified these people, but if the Secretary of State for the Environment had been here I would have told him about the environment of these people being disturbed because of his refusal to allow an extension of the runway at Leeds/Bradford Airport. Whenever we have a debate on coal it is an emotional one.
There is a world shortage of energy. Canada is exporting a tremendous

amount of coal to Japan. Japan imports its oil and coal, and its energy problem is almost insoluble. The United States seeks coking coal on the Continent. Appeals have been made for sanity. My appeal is for people to bear in mind that, at the present rate of consumption, we have reserves of coal which will last for well over 200 years. Yet there is this dilemma of men between the ages of 50 and 60 walking the streets, kicking their heels and not knowing from where the next job will come.
There are hon. Members here who remember the arguments which we had in the early 1950s about nuclear energy reaching parity with coal in about 1965. Today, taking into account proper costings, it is nowhere near parity, and there will not be parity even when we reach 1980. Sir John Cockcroft, who, unfortunately, has since died, made a forecast about nuclear energy. He forecast that in the early 1960s nuclear energy would have gone well beyond the limits of coal. He was an expert, but his forecast was miles out.
Electricity produced from coal, both low voltage and high voltage, is in most instances cheaper than electricity produced by coal in Western Europe. Britain's manufacturers have an advantage over their foreign competitors. I wonder how many people in this country realise that their electricity is cheaper than the electricity of people on the Continent. It behoves us to extract as much coal as possible and to make sure that our power stations are coal fired.
There is talk of commercial freedom for the Central Electricity Generating Board. The Ministry must be careful. Its forecasting has been wrong. The C.E.G.B. does not altogether know its own business, but is trying to say that it knows the business of the National Coal Board far better than the Chairman of the Coal Board. We shall make a great and tragic mistake if we allow the C.E.G.B. commercial freedom. Its gross optimism concerning Dungeness B has put us in queer street. In debate after debate we have been unable to get the true facts concerning nuclear energy and its production.

Mr. Alex Eadie: Prior to the general election the Select Committee on Science and Technology made a report on the Magnox power station which illustrated that some of these power stations


will be able to work at only 75 per cent. capacity for the rest of their lives. This illustrates the point that my hon. Friend made that the costings of nuclear energy vis-à-vis coal have been ridiculously wrong.

Mr. Roberts: I agree. Another tragedy is that at Seaton Carew we have a nuclear energy power station right in the middle of the coalfield. In my opinion, it was a very had decision to sit it there.
There are 300,000 families who want to know the Government's intentions concerning the Coal Industry Bill. The industry needs sympathy and help. Over the first 20 years of nationalisation manpower decreased by 50 per cent. and production decreased by 25 per cent.
The mining industry has been very well behaved, particularly those who work in it. I belong to the National Union of Mineworkers. The union first debated its wage claim in the Isle of Man and took a democratic decision. The claim was discussed with the Coal Board. There was a ballot which was counted in London. Offers have been made. We have proved to the world that the N.U.M. and the Coal Board try to fulfil their obligations.
The national executive of the National Union of Mineworkers came to a decision this week. I appeal to the miners to accept that decision until we have a ballot on whether it should be accepted in toto throughout the coalfields. We may easily cut off our nose to spite our face. We want to keep the wheels going. We know the importance of coal. If the miners accept the national executive's decision and put the question to the ballot it will be respected by the public. Some pits in my county have been on strike today and they may be on strike next week.
There will be a shortage of coal this winter and some people will suffer. I think of the pensioners and the low wage earners, who cannot afford to stock coal during the summer. They will feel the pinch. As someone who has been in the industry for a long time, who has been victimised and shed blood in it, I do not want to see people suffer because of a lack of fuel. I believe that fuel is the next most important commodity to meat. I

hope that we can all behave sensibly, and that the Government will do a good job in the new Bill. Let us have something worth while, bearing in mind redundancies and the social consequences. Let us see if we can work out something which is acceptable and ensure that the men who work in the industry have a fair wage. I am sure that hon. Members will bear out my belief that there is good will in the mining industry.

6.40 p.m.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: It is always a great joy to me to follow the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Albert Roberts), who speaks with the genuine and legitimate voice of Yorkshire miners and who has forgotten more about the coalmining industry than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) will ever know. I will return to the latter-named hon. Gentleman in a few moments.
Suffice it to say that during two decades when I have taken part in innumerable debates in the House on the coal industry I have seen the industry's manpower decline from more than 700,000 to about 285,000 today, the biggest decline in manpower over a period of 20 years of any industry in Britain. Therefore, it is not surprising that there are grave upheavals in the industry and very great difficulties in readjusting output to contemporary demand.
I propose to touch on aspects of this matter in the course of my speech, but I certainly do not propose to make a speech on coalminers' wages. This debate is not about coalminers' wages. Nor is it about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement last Tuesday. The debate about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement last Tuesday is to take place on Thursday next, and I will address myself to it then.
Let me now deal with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who made a great brouhaha about the Coal Industry Bill not having made its appearance. My right lion. Friend was kind and gentle in responding to the hon. Gentleman; my right hon. Friend was short and factual. My right hon. Friend said everything he had to say in 20 minutes, compared with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who took 40 minutes. My right hon. Friend was too gentlemanly, evidently, to tell the hon. Member for Ebbw


Vale the facts of coal life in the House. Let the hon. Gentleman go away and look up the facts of coal life. Let him fault any one of these facts.
When he sat here in this seat in March of this year he will have remembered the Coal Industry Bill, introduced by his party—then unfortunately governing Britain. It was the end of March that the Bill was brought in. I remind my right hon. Friend that that Bill was brought to the House for Second Reading on 9th April. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) can keep quiet for a moment. I will deal with him in a moment.

Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman is pushing his luck.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not pushing my luck. I am just dealing with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I will deal with all the coal miners opposite, seriatim.
Let me return to this topic. The Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill was on 9th April and was not opposed by Members of my party. It was virtually an agreed Measure.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Oh!

Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) nods assent. The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) should go away and read the debate. It was virtually an agreed Measure. That is why I myself—a controversialist—did not intervene in the debate. I did not wish to inject any element of disputation into our proceedings that day.

Mr. Wainwright: That is more honest now.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am completely honest. Between 9th April and 29th May, that being the date of dissolution of the last Parliament there were no fewer than 38 days.
Thus, for an agreed Measure there was more than ample parliamentary time for that Bill to have been taken through to the Statute Book. However, the Labour Government, due to clumsy incompetence, omitted to take the Bill through to the Statute Book.

Mr. Skeet: They were preparing for an election on that occasion.

Sir G. Nabarro: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would have liked to have gone round the coalmining valleys of South Wales swanking that he had put the Measure on to the Statute Book, but he allowed it to drop, along with that twin Socialist Measure to nationalise the docks: the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could not find time for that either. That Measure fell at the end of the Parliament and thereby was lost for ever, sunk into oblivion, where it is today.
It is no good the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale grinning. He pointed an accusing finger at my right hon. Friend, who is patently honest in these matters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman said "more patent than honest". I repeat that my right hon. Friend is patently honest in these matters, but he did not remind the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale that the loss of the Coal Industry Bill by the Socialist Party was due to its own incompetence.
Thus I reject absolutely the words of the hon. Gentleman. I repeat them to the House in case any hon. Members who were not here to listen to the hon. Gentleman care to know what they were. In his characteristic rhetoric, more reminiscent of his soap-box days at Speakers' Corner, Hyde Park, than as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the hon. Gentleman said that my party in its outlook was narrow, blinkered and suburban.

Mr. Michael Foot: And bewhiskered.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is too feminine to grow whiskers, anyway.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that in all my political life of 25 years nobody has ever accused me of being narrow. Wide open spaces are the grounds I seek. Only the hon. Gentleman considers me narrow.
Then the hon. Gentleman says that I am blinkered. Blinkered indeed, when I perceive his own misdeeds in all parts of Britain and the stories he tells to his coal mining fraternity in South Wales and they obediently follow him.
Third, the hon. Gentleman accuses me of being suburban when I sit for the


lushest of county constituencies in England—[Interruption.]. Of course it is a safe Tory seat, but it is utterly unsuburban.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)—that strikes a chord; that rubs salt into the wound for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I remind him that the late right hon. Member for Cannock was Mrs. Aneurin Bevan—Miss Jennie Lee—who enjoyed a majority at Cannock 11,027 votes in 1966. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock won the seat by 1,529 votes, a swing of 12,556 votes—and Cannock is very largely a coalmining seat. So perhaps the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will not accuse all of my hon. Friends of being narrow, blinkered and suburban when they can win coalmining seats from his friends such as Miss Jennie Lee. The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric may have caused an ignorant titter on the benches behind him but it had little foundation in fact. He can wring his face wryly at my rhetoric in response.
Now I turn to the real subject of this debate, the coal industry—not miners' wages: the coal industry. Of course, the coal industry today, I remind my right hon. Friend, is in a deranged condition. The output of the industry is too small; the demand for its products is slipping away because it cannot give delivery of its products in the selective ranges demanded by consumers in all parts of Britain; and many of the products of the coal mining industry are highly uncompetitive today.
I brought here, as an example to give the House—because I love my solid fuel at home and I am a devotee of coal—I brought here my invoice and the receipt attached to it. I could hardly afford to pay it. For two tons of washed peas for cooking at home—and I live in Worcestershire—the price I paid was £23 7s. 6d. per ton. That price, I remind my right hon. Friend, has risen by 100 per cent. during the last few years. I am now tempted, were I not such a devotee of solid fuel, to switch over to oil, which would be much cheaper and better for this purpose. And I could get the oil. Immediately I could get the oil.
This is the complaint from all my constituents. They all say the same thing.

They say to me, "We can get oil immediately; we can get electricity immediately; we can get gas immediately. What incentive is there to go on burning coal which gets progressively more and more expensive?" And, in many instances, though not all, poorer in quality. The first thing that the Coal Board has got to do is to start satisfying its customers. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale would go back and tell his coal mining constituents to stop studying their own interests and behave as public servants and start looking after my constituents by providing them with what they desire in the form of coal products at an economic and competitive price. I give way to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. I am not surprised that the hon. Member has mentioned the value of coal per ton, £23 11s. 2d.

Sir G. Nabarro: £23 7s. 6d. per ton.

Mr. Wainwright: I am sorry. £23 7s. 6d. Could the hon. Member tell us what was the pit head price for that coal and how much a ton was fixed for distribution and was that by private enterprise or nationalised industry.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will arrange to write and publish the letter to the hon. Gentleman. [Hon. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no good shouting at me. I have given the retail price of the coal and I am perfectly clear about this and I will write to the Coal Board and ask it to ascertain the pit head price.
There is the nub of the complaint. I respond at once to the hon. Gentleman sympathetically. The House rose for Christmas in 1969; I returned to my Worcestershire home at once, and on the following morning—that is, the following day—I was telephoned by a local coal merchant who said, "The local hospital in Evesham say they are about to run out of solid fuel and will be unheated over Christmas unless I can get coal supplies."I said, "What are you to do with it, as a local merchant? The hospital does not buy its coal, surely, from a local merchant?" He said, "Oh, yes. We have a contract to supply the local hospital."I said, "When you took that contract where did you take the coal from?"


He said, "We order it from a main merchant in Birmingham." In due course I got in touch with the main merchant and asked, "Where do you buy your coal from?" He said, "We buy it from the Coal Board in Nottingham." I got in touch with the Coal Board at Nottingham and asked, "Where do you buy it from?" I was told, "We buy it from a colliery at Nantgarw in South Wales."
This is one thing that is wrong. Why should a hospital, nationalised, be buying its coal from one merchant who then buys his coal from another merchant, who then buys his coal from the Coal Board in the East Midlands, which then buys its coal from the pit at Nantgarw in South Wales? Do not say, "Nationalise the coal distribution". I have heard that one before. The major opponents of the nationalisation of coal distribution are the biggest supporters of the Labour Party, the Co-ops. It is no answer to ask for the nationalisation of coal distribution.
There is, undoubtedly, in what the hon. Member for Dearne Valley said, an element of truth. There are all these margins in distribution. But I will do what I said. I will find out exactly what the pit head price is for that coal and I will send it to him.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I asked this question only a year ago, and the average price for coal at the pit head was between £5 and £6 per ton.

Sir G. Nabarro: Well, I doubt that. I doubt whether coal could be supplied at £23 7s. 0d. by the retailer and be £6 at the pit head, but I will go into it and find out and publish the figure very happily for the hon. Gentleman, and put it in the Library of the House as well if he wishes.
However, there are other important matters to be discussed today, and one of those is, undoubtedly, the position of the electricity industry. Coal is going to increase in price yet once more. This year—I am talking about the calendar year, 1970—we may, if we are lucky, turn out 142 million tons of coal. That is about the measure of it. Of those 142 million tons of coal the electricity authorities will burn about 68 million to 69 million tons. In other words, as my right hon. Friend suggested, nearly one-half of all the coal mined in Britain

today is consumed by the electricity boards. We hear a lot about the productivity of the coal mining industry, and the hon. Gentleman with his 4 per cent. was corrected by my right hon. Friend who said 2·6 per cent. and I shall put them both right in a moment because my own figure is different from that of either of them.

Mr. John Davies: 2·8 per cent.

Sir G. Nabarro: I apologise; 2·8 per cent. But I make it slightly different.
I come to what the then Minister of Technology, winding up the debate on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill on 9th April, had to postulate about coal production in the years ahead. It is worth quoting this today because it shows and ought to demonstrate to the coal miners particularly how far their own Front Bench is removed from reality. This is what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) the then Minister of Technology, had to say:
The level of coal demand in the 1970s will really depend on the industry's success in increasing efficiency and reducing costs.
Reducing costs.
There is a range of possibilities which widens the further one looks into the future. If output per man shift grows at an average rate of 5 per cent. per year—the long-term trend of the 1960s—demand for coal for 1975 should be close to the much debated 1967 estimate of 120 million tons. The prospects for demand would be improved if output per man shift increased at 9 per cent. per year, as in 1968–69, but, obviously, would not be so good if it grew only at the 1969–70 rate. The greater the industry's success in increasing productivity and reducing costs, the stronger will be the case for continued government support of coal use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 9th April, 1970; Vol. 799, c. 767.]
There we see a figure of 9 per cent. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale talked about 4 per cent. and was corrected by my right hon. Friend who talked about 2·8 per cent. The figure of 9 per cent. is about three and a quarter times as great as the increase in productivity indicated by my right hon. Friend. I believe that a 9 per cent. increase in coal productivity is cloud-cuckoo-land. Yet this is the figure on which the previous Minister of Technology was basing his fuel projections and hundreds of millions of national investment in the 1970s. That is why the statistics are so wrong, but then such statistics often are.

Mr. Skeet: Are we only concerned with the matter of productivity? Those who run power stations in my locality complain that they have to cope with extremely poor quality coal. Surely today we want sulphur-free coal, and some of the United Kingdom coal has a very large quantity of sulphur in it.

Sir G. Nabarro: A section of my speech deals with power station user and I will deal with that matter a little later.

Mr. Michael Foot: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I was not here when he disputed a figure I had given. The only figure I quoted was the figure put forward by the National Economic Development Council as to productivity of coal in that period. I was comparing like with like strictly because I was comparing the increase of productivity in the coal industry with that in the private sector generally. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) will find all the figures there.

Sir G. Nabarro: I have always been titillated by the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. I have never been impressed by his statistical ability or performance. I will now give him the statistics which I commend to my right hon. Friend. They are issued by the Department of Trade and Industry and are contained in the weekly statistical statement. They reached me yesterday morning and, therefore, they must be the last figures published. They are in respect of 28 weeks to 10th October, 1970, and show that the output of coal per man-shift at the face measured in cwts was 140·97 and in the comparable 28 weeks ended 11th October, 1969, it was 135·14. My right hon. Friend is as fast with a slide rule as most statisticians and he will deduce at once that the margin of increase there is almost exactly 4 per cent. measured over the 28 weeks to October, 1970. Those figures are good enough for me.
My point is that if we go on that rate we shall be miles short of the 9 per cent. on which industrial investment is based and we will never achieve the 9 per cent. We did so in 1968–69 for many special reasons, reasons which the hon. Member for Dearne Valley knows as well as I. We brought into production a lot of highly mechanised units in the East Midlands and elsewhere where capital investment was lavish in earlier years

and that came into production in a short period of time. We experienced an upsurge of output, notably in the East Midlands and to a lesser extent elsewhere. That is why those figures were achieved in that period. I entreat my right hon. Friend to be realistic and to base his projections in the 1970s on a 4 per cent. per annum increase in coal production since that is the realistic figure.
I apologise for intervening in the speech of my right hon. Friend on the matter of power stations and I was grateful to him for giving me so much of his time. The point I was trying to make, which is an important one, is that we have now reached the phenomenal consumption of nearly 70 million tons of coal per year at power stations. The merit of burning increasing quantities of coal at power stations is that modern plant and machinery in these stations can handle coals with a very high ash content. Special plant can be installed largely to desulphurise the effluent. The thermal efficiency of the coal burnt at power stations is of the highest possible importance.
My right hon. Friend mentioned that one great user of coal, which has been knocked out in recent years, is the railways. There were 19,000 steam locomotives in existence all of which have now disappeared. The demand consisting of 14 million tons of large coal by steam locomotives which existed in the early 1950s has now entirely disappeared. They have become electrified and dieselised, which is all in the interests of good fuel economics. But that was large coal. We are putting mostly poor coal into the power stations. The steam engines were burning coal with a fuel efficiency of only 6 per cent. In other words, 6 per cent. of the thermal qualities of the coal were usefully employed and 94 per cent. were cast away, whether it be in the Royal Scot or a shunting engine. Today only 28 per cent. of the thermal quality of coal at power stations is usefully employed. Some 72 per cent. of it is wasted. If the thermal efficiency of coal burned at power stations can be increased by 1 per cent. 700,000 tons of coal can be saved in a year.
I will mention one dismal factor. This matter has never been debated since the report I am about to quote appeared during the General Election period, and we


had not time to discuss it in the short time during which we reassembled before going away for the Summer Recess. Therefore this document has not attracted much attention. I refer to the annual report and accounts of the Electricity Council for 1969–70, which makes this position abundantly clear. It says on page 28, paragraph 74:
The average thermal efficiency of generation in the Board's coal and oil fired stations during the year was 28·30 per cent. compared with 28·26 per cent. in 1968–69. The highest thermal efficiency achieved in any one station was 34·89 per cent. at Ferrybridge 'C' power station, Yorkshire.
The fact that if the electricity authority concentrated on raising the thermal efficiency of plant and were given the necessary margin of plant to deal with the vicissitudes of the weather, the saving in coal, year by year, on account of increased thermal efficiency would offset the increased price of coal thrust on them by the National Coal Board. Because the thermal efficiency of power stations is not being increased this country will witness in the next few months a dramatic increase in the price of electricity, as in the price of steel, consequent on the big margin of increase in the price of coal. Thus there are two sides to this point. It is not only a matter of increasing the coal productivity of pits. It is also a question of concentrating on the thermal efficiency with which the coal is burned in power stations.
I conclude by giving one dismal allusion. Some 15 years ago a group of 12 Members of this House initiated the clean air legislation. It was an interesting body of men who took it through. Lord Robens was the principal Labour sponsor, Hillary Marquand was the second Labour sponsor, Philip Noel-Baker was the third Labour sponsor; the present Speaker of the House of Commons was the fourth Labour sponsor, and I could name several more. On the Tory side my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was one of the Tory sponsors, and I was another, and so on. We all knew that this revolution at the fireside would take 10 to 20 years. Our first objective was to clean up the black areas of Britain on account of smog and the palls of bituminous coal smoke which hung like a cloud over Stoke-on-Trent and the Potteries, over Central

Manchester and so many other of the black areas alluded to in the Beaver Report of 1954. Governments of all parties have made substantial progress with smoke control areas. We made much progress from 1956 until 1969. Now for the first time we go severely into reverse. Householders, hospitals and factories in smoke control areas, are applying for permission and being granted it, freely to break the law and to burn bituminous coals emitting dark and even black smoke because smokeless fuel is not available.
Who is responsible for this muddle? For 15 years we have been promised every year that the National Coal Board would deliver millions of tons of Bronowski bullets—[An HON. MEMBER: "He has gone. Yes, he has gone, gone to California, sunk without trace. We shall never see Professor Bronowski again. But Stoke Orchard is there and the millions of £s invested in Bronowski bullets to provide a generous supply of solid smokeless fuel based on our own bituminous coals processed by the National Coal Board at establishments all over Britain has been wasted. Large quantities of solid smokeless fuels to match the demand in smoke control areas, coupled with the smokeless fuels provided from decarbonisation plants of the Gas Board are not available. Coke supply has declined due to the ingress of natural gas from the North Sea. The combination of the failure of the National Coal Board to provide solid smokeless fuel and the switch over from natural gas almost eliminating the supply of coke and coke products has left us this winter in the ignominious position of sending anthracite duff from the valleys of South Wales to France to be made into solid smokeless briquettes and then to be sold back to us in Britain, 100,000 tons of it at a high premium price. This means that my constituents in South Worcestershire can be robbed and pillaged because of the inefficiency of Bronowski, Robens and his cohorts in the board.

Mr. Skeet: Before my hon. Friend completes his remarks, could I ask him about one matter. He mentioned desulphurising of coal. There is no effective process that I know of for fully desulphurising coal. This has been one of the problems in the United States and that is why production has been falling there.

Sir G. Nabarro: I will reserve that matter for the electricity debate.
In this connection, I want to be fair to everyone concerned in this controversy and ask my right hon. Friend to find out why pits in South Wales capable of turning out smokeless fuel efficiently have been shut down deliberately by the Board notwithstanding the opposition of the National Union of Mineworkers which wanted them kept open. Why? Why does not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale vent his spleen, use all his savage invective of which he is so capable, upon the executives of the National Coal Board in South Wales—[Interruption.] I would remind the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that it is nothing to grin about.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir G. Nabarro: No, I want to read a quotation first. I will come back to the hon. Member for Aberdare. I quote from the Financial Times of 13th April, 1970:
Miners angered by decision to import smokeless fuel.
I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is listening.
A decision by the National Coal Board to import French smokeless briquettes made from Welsh anthracite in face of an acute shortage of smoke-free fuel in the United Kingdom has infuriated miners' leaders. The plan is expected to be discussed tomorrow at the South Wales miners' executive in Cardiff. 'Such an announcement is ludicrous when the National Coal Board has just refused to reprieve Glyncorrwg which makes the finest smokeless fuel in the country' Mr. Emlyn Williams, Vice-President of the South Wales miners, complained yesterday. The National Union of Mineworkers had predicted severe shortages five years ago, when the National Coal Board was advertising smokeless fuel but could not supply it, he claimed. A Coal Board spokesman later denied that the decision to close Glencorrwg colliery in South Wales and to take trial imports of smokeless briquettes made in France were connected in any way. 'Glencorrwg is being closed', he said. 'because it is no longer economic to work. It is a subject which has been fully debated.' Despite the National Coal Board's attempts to step up output from its own smokeless fuel plants, it is estimated that there could be a shortage of about 700,000 tons next year.
Here we have a situation where the National Coal Board takes hundreds of millions of £s of new investment voted by this House for the purpose of building smokeless solid fuel plants. It failed to

deliver the smokeless solid fuel, it closes down the plants that it has, it then supplies duff to France, allows the French to make the briquettes, buys them back at a high premium price, and charges the losses to my constituents—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) is not amused at that.

Mr. Fred Evans: I will tell you something about it in a moment.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman must not refer to Madam Deputy Speaker as "you". As a miners' representative, the hon. Gentleman should be hanging his head in shame. If I represented Caerphilly, I would have been blowing off non-stop about this scandal over recent months which has wasted the taxpayers' money.
No part of it was referred to by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He had not been informed of this state of affairs, of course, and, as is characteristic, he concentrated on his rhetoric and forgot the facts of the situation.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that he was undecided whether to change his kitchen cooker from coal to gas or electricity because of the high bills that he was having to meet. Does he realise that it is exactly that which bedevils the Coal Board? In making its forecasts, very much depends on the rate at which people change to gas or electricity. In the case of the hon. Gentleman, can we have an estimate of when he will change so as to give the Coal Board some idea at least of whether he will require smokeless fuel for his cooker in two or three years?

Sir G. Nabarro: I want to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance. I have two good and valid reasons for staying with solid fuel for cooking. The first is that I am devoted to it in that the three ladies in my family prefer to cook on a solid fuel burning appliance. The second reason is that I have many friends among miners. I am given a good reception in Notts and Derbyshire, South Wales and Yorkshire. The last time that I talked to the Yorkshire miners they were so impressed by my speech that they deferred presenting a silver miner's lamp for long service to a local official of the N.U.M.


and presented it to me instead. It is in my library at home.

Mr. Joseph Harper: It is not silver.

Sir G. Nabarro: That may be, but it is as valuable to me as if it was. It is insured as silver.
On 3rd February last we Conservatives, then in Opposition, moved a Motion:
That this House deplores the failure of the Government to ensure the supplies of smokeless fuel necessary to implement the clean air policy, particularly in view of the stress laid on environmental pollution in recent ministerial speeches.
That Government, mercifully, is now in opposition. At the end of the day, we on this side were defeated. The result of the Division was 305 votes for the then Government and 244 votes for the then Opposition. But we registered our protest, and now I entreat my right hon. Friend to engage in four-year planning for smokeless fuels. I do not mean only solid smokeless fuels but solid smokeless fuels based on coal and as well—oil, gas, electricity and natural gas, which are all smokeless fuels. I urge my right hon. Friend to adopt that course to ensure that this is the last winter when we are placed in this harrowing situation of having to import solid smokeless fuel from France to redress our own unsatisfactory fuel balance.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote down this Motion criticising the Government. We are doing our best in very trying circumstances. Our inheritance was truly appalling. The appearance of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at the Dispatch Box was memorable. I watched it and was captivated observing the finer points of his delivery. When he resumed his seat, I said to myself, "There is hope for me yet". I love the hon. Gentleman dearly as a political opponent. Were I ever to pick a political opponent on television, on radio or in this House, it would always be the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, whose rhetoric is spendid but whose facts are invariably abysmally inaccurate.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am grateful for an opportunity to speak in this very important debate. My constituency has within it upwards of 10,000 miners who work in the Notts and Derby-

shire coalfield. It is important to place on record, too, that the previous hon. Member for Bolsover was Mr. Harold Neal, who served the constituency diligently for about 25 years. Like me, he became an official of the Derbyshire miners. During the post-war Government, he was made Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power. Perhaps at that point I should cease to make comparisons.
Having worked underground for 21 years and accumulated a little knowledge on the way, I want if possible to impart a little of it to the House. I wish to refer especially to one matter raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) concerning pithead prices of coal.
The price of coal at the pithead in Derbyshire when I left it on 18th June was less than £5 a ton. It is true that the national position is somewhat higher. The reason is that the North Derbyshire output per man shift is higher than the national figure. The result is that the national pit head price is something like £5 15s. a ton.
The reason why the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has to pay about £23 a ton for his smokeless fuel is that there are many people involved in trying to sell it. It could be argued that they are rigging the market in no way less than the people shown on television a few nights ago who are rigging the market in the construction industry.
Three problems face our miners today. From my point of view, it is a pity that they have been referred to already by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his excellent speech. Obviously it would be difficult for me to improve upon his rhetoric.
I want to attempt to say a few words first about the basic wages and conditions in the mining industry. For some reason, they never seem to get across to the people really concerned. When miners talk about wanting a £20 minimum wage, they are really discussing a £20 maximum wage. There are no bonus payments in the mining industry today. There are no piece rates, no annual increments and no service payments. A man who has been in the pit for 50 years from the age of 13 or 14 finds towards the end of his career that he is likely to be shuffled to


the bottom of the pack. Far from getting service payments, he gets less than he did 20 or 30 years before.
My hon. Friends well know the conditions that I have outlined, but the Government should realise that wages and conditions of these kinds have to be accepted. When we discuss a £20 minimum wage for miners, it is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite arguing that we are talking about something in excess of that when other marginal additions are made at the pithead.
For working unsocial hours—the afternoon shift, the night shift, the continental shift and the twilight shift—unlike many other workers, the miner receives the monumental amount of 6d. an hour extra for working between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Indeed, it can and must be said that many miners do not receive that. Unlike hon. Members, miners are not sent home for a 95 days' cooling off period. Miners receive two weeks annual holiday entitlement. It ill becomes anybody outside or any hon. Member in this House to talk about the miner having an occasional day off when the allowances that he gets for holidays are so abysmally low.
Because of this situation—the wages and conditions that the miners have suffered all these years—we have seen, during the past few months and weeks, an upsurge of militancy in the miners' ranks. It was an upsurge of militancy that recorded a 55 per cent. vote. Let no one imagine that the 55 per cent. vote was regarded by people like myself, who have just left the industry, or those who are now officials within it, as a disaster. It is generally accepted that if this vote had been taken 10, or even five, years ago the chances are that it would have been more like 20 per cent., not 55 per cent., because for the last 15 years the miners' leaders have been confronted by a Chairman of the Coal Board who has been able to hide behind a 40 million ton mountain of coal. During the past two years—particularly the last 18 months—it became apparent not only to the miners, but also to people outside the industry, that this mountain was gradually being removed and that, therefore, the miners' bargaining power had improved with it.
When the miners were asking for their £5 a week wage claim, it was not a

question of £5 today. The exercise in which they were taking part involved £5 in retrospection—a £5 wage claim that they failed to get 15 years previously because they were not then able to use any bargaining power. So it was not £5 for this particular year; it was £5 that they failed to get previously. It was indeed retrospection.
They also recognised that they were confronted by a Chairman of the Coal Board, behind his 40 million ton mountain of coal, who previously exuded a great deal of self-confidence, now transferring that self-confidence into nothing less than arrogance—arrogance in the form of certain letters, before the strike ballot was declared, to the homes of the miners in order, it appears, to try to influence the miners' families in the strike ballet. But, most important, he was really saying to the miners' executive that he had met the previous Tuesday, "I cannot really trust you to tell the miners what the offer is. I must tell them myself."
The miners, realising the contempt with which they were faced, decided to put in for the full claim. I put it to the Chairman of the National Coal Board that if he really wants to display any tendencies of arrogance on behalf of the miners, the best possible way he can do it is to say to the miners' leaders, "I will accede to the full £5 claim; I will also refuse to raise coal prices", and, instead of alienating the miners and their leaders, walk arm in arm with them and confront the Tory Government with the demand that he is prepared to meet. That would be the kind of arrogance that I and the miners feel would remove the alienation which has taken place.
The second major problem facing the industry, to which reference has already been made, concerns financial reconstruction. During the past two years the National Union of Mineworkers has argued—indeed, I raised the matter at the Swansea conference in 1968—that the Coal Board and the nationalised industries were failing to get investment grants comparable with those that private industry had been getting inside and outside the regions, but particularly in the regions, because, strangely enough, most of the coalfields are in the development areas. It can be usefully argued that if we had got development grants on the


same basis as private industry it would have meant upwards of £15 million. We cannot argue about that today, because on Tuesday the Chancellor pulled the rug from under our feet. If we are to have a viable coal industry, as suggested by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there must be a substantial write-off of the capital debts—a write-off that takes account of the £74 million paid in the 12-year period between 1947 and 1959 for importing foreign coal; a write-off that takes account of the £334 million paid to the former coal owners; and a write-off that takes account—most important of all—of the £1,000 million lost to the industry between 1947 and 1959 because the Coal Board and the miners were subsidising the rest of British industry to that amount by selling cheap coal. Without a write-off it seems to me and to my hon. Friends that we are not likely to remove one of the main problems within the industry. Indeed, it is hanging like an albatross not around the neck of the Chairman of the Coal Board but around the necks of the miners themselves.
The third problem is the social question that arises from redundancy, pit closures, etc.
First, I want to touch on social costs. In the Bill that was presented to this House in March this year by the Labour Administration there was reference to a sliding scale of two-thirds' social costs being borne by the Government, one-half in the second year and one-third in the third year. I would argue that the Bill should go further. It should indeed be talking about social costs being borne in full by the Government of the day. The reason is obvious. It seems to me that the banker in Bournemouth should rightly pay as much in contribution to the consequences of the nation shutting pits as the back-ripper in Bolsover. Unless it is fully borne by the Government, the back-ripper in Bolsover will pay more than his fair share in the social costs of the industry.
The second point in this social question concerns redundancy pay. The wage-related benefits introduced by the Coal Industry Act, 1967 have now expired so far as some miners are concerned. There are miners aged 58 and over throughout the coalfields who are beginning to

become excluded from the wage-related benefits and are falling back on unemployment pay. I do not think that there has been any suggestion for cutting that. However, it will mean £8 2s. Therefore, I am arguing, as some of my hon. Friends argued with the previous Labour Administration, that there is a real necessity to see that the social benefits are continued over and above the three years until the men get jobs, which is unlikely, or until they reach the age of 65. It can usefully be argued that one of the reasons why the Bill was to some extent delayed was that these representations were being made by some of my hon. Friends. I suggest, therefore, that this is taken into account when the Bill is introduced.
The third point which comes within the social question as a result of pit closures concerns the provision of alternative industries. My opinion is that, as a result of the Chancellor's statement on Tuesday, far from seeing more alternative industries being directed or, shall we say, finding themselves within the development regions, which are generally consistent with the coalfields, we shall see fewer. Nevertheless, I suppose that it is my job as the representative of my constituents in Bolsover, who have seen a few pit closures, to put it to the Government that they should do something about the situation.
The worst blow of all to the miners—and this, too, was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—occurred on Tuesday when the Chancellor of the Exchequer struck what I considered to be a savage blow against the miners in particular. I refer to the three waiting days provision. The statistics in the National Coal Board's Report for the financial year ended 31st March 1970 show that there were 110,000 accidents in the industry during the previous 12 months. Of those, several hundred were reportable accidents, which meant that they represented broken limbs, broken arms, and, indeed, legs being removed. Despite all that, on Tuesday we heard of the appalling announcement that a miner disabled in an accident, or a miner with dust-filled lungs, will find that when he goes off sick or injured he will lose half the benefits that he now receives, and that is more than equal to


the £5 wage claim which the miners have put in.
If there is industrial peace in the coalfields this winter it will not be due to the efforts of the Chairman of the Coal Board, or because of the manipulations of the Tory Government. They will not have earned it, and in my view they do not deserve it.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am perhaps unique, in that as a new Member who is not making a maiden speech I have the privilege of congratulating a new colleague who has just made one. I am sure that I voice the feelings of every hon. Member when I say that I admired the way in which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke. He did so with fervour, and with knowledge of the industry, and I am sure that the House will look forward to further contributions from him. Although his union has lost a valuable servant, the House has gained an expert on this most important of subjects.
I am particularly glad to be able to make my speech following the hon. Gentleman, because in 1964 I had the privilege of fighting the constituency which he now represents, and I had there my baptism of fire. It resulted in a large majority for my opponent but it was one of the pleasantest political experiences that I have ever had. The hon. Gentleman comes from a constituency which has not only coalmines, but a beautiful countryside, and a splendid group of people who typify miners at their best.
I am especially proud to be able to represent a constituency which is basically a mining one. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who has now gone to refresh himself after his endeavours, spoke about my victory at Cannock. I bear my responsibilities with pleasure, but with a consciousness of the fact that there has been a long and honourable association between the Labour Party and the mining industry, an association which has been evident in my constituency, as in many others. I know that my responsibilities are great, and I hope that I shall discharge them properly.
I cannot help but wonder, however, whether my victory was in some degree due to the fact that the hon. Member for

Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) came and spoke on my opponent's platform because, although we were all vastly entertained by his rhetoric, I do not think that with his speech this afternoon he served those whom he calls his friends very well. It was not a responsible speech. It was full of fireworks. There was plenty of fire, but whether there was any fuel is another matter. It was not the constructive contribution of a leader of his party, which he now purports to be.
I wish to talk about various issues and to relate them particularly to my constituency, but before doing so I should like to say something about mining and miners in general. We have in the mining community as fine a body of people as one can find anywhere in this country or, indeed, anywhere else. Their spirit, their resilience and their adaptability, of which such splendid evidence has been given from these benches over the years, are things that we can all admire but few of us can ever hope to emulate. The way in which they have adapted themselves over the last difficult years not only to new techniques within their own industry, but to new industries, has been an inspiration to many people.
My constituency is no longer quite the constituency that it was. Many of the pits have closed, and there are only a few now, but what we have are fine pits. I should like to refer to one in particular, Littleton Colliery, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I put in a special plea.
It seems to me that what we really have to direct our attention to this afternoon is the next two or three decades. We have all heard and read, in recent weeks particularly of the enormous potential of oil on the Continental Shelf, and particularly the Rockall Plateau. It may be that by the turn of the century coalmining will be almost a thing of the past. There will be enormous benefits to be derived from this new indigenous fuel, benefits which will do us all a tremendous amount of good, benefits which will help our country financially, because it is possible that the royalties accruing from these new finds, if their potential is realised, will bring a new dimension to our thinking. It will give us greater resources with which to beautify and enhance our landscape, and that is a matter to which I shall return in a moment.
I propose, now, to return to the situation in the next two or three decades, and to deal particularly with Littleton Colliery. It has a work force of about 1,750 people. It is a million ton pit, but this year its target is more than 1 million tons, and it will reach it. It is making a profit of £500,000 a year. It has vast reserves of 60 million or 70 million tons of good quality, multipurpose coal. At the moment most of its coal goes to the power station at Ironbridge in nearby Shropshire. In four year's time it will be supplying about 75 per cent. of the fuel used at that power station, but if its real potential is to be realised, if the necessary target of 1½ million tons is to be reached to compensate for the inevitable pit closure in other parts of the country, and if its profitability is to be increased, it is essential that a major surface drift scheme be implemented very soon.
The scheme has been devised and given stage 1 approval by the National Coal Board, and it is now in London awaiting the green light, we hope. The cost will be £2·8 million, or thereabouts, but this is a real investment, and I sincerely hope that whatever measures are announced from these benches in the next few weeks nothing will happen to prevent this important colliery from fulfilling its proper rôle of supplying the amount of fuel that it is capable of providing, and that we shall need during the next two decades.
There are two other matters to which I should like to refer, both of which were mentioned in the admirable and reasoned speech of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts). He talked about the problems of opencast and of subsidence. I should like to say a word about opencast first. In my constituency this subject engenders a great deal of controversy. We are awaiting the outcome of a recent inquiry into whether there should be further opencast operations on one particular site, and we have read recently that other applications are to be made. There are many people, some from mining families, who view with apprehension and alarm the further despoilation of our countryside. But one must accept that it may well be necessary for further opencast operations to take place. All I would say is that if it is essential, I hope that it is a case of

"quick in and quick out" and that there will be a proper tidying up afterwards.
In this Conservation Year, when "environment" is very much the "in" word, we should address our thoughts to this problem. It seems to me that we have here an ideal opportunity for co-operation between our two new Ministries, the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry for the Environment. Let us hope that where opencast takes place, we can soon have trees growing again. It has been promised before, and too often the promise has not been kept.
Referring to the other matter which the hon. Member for Normanton mentioned, the problem of subsidence, there are in my constituency many who have suffered from this state of affairs. Property has lost its value. Lives have been wrecked by the financial worries that have been brought upon people. It is essential that we direct our attention early in this Parliament to amending the 1957 Act so that there is greater provision for proper and adequate compensation for the victims of mining subsidence.
Hon. Members opposite who have a deep and real knowledge of this subject often feel that we on this side of the House, because we have not got the intimate knowledge, do not share their concern. We do. I say to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale: there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy. It is possible to have a totally different view of the subject and yet to be just as concerned as hon. Members opposite so rightly and properly are.
The Government, which I am proud to support, have a true appreciation of and a proper regard for the mining industry, an industry which has cradled Britain's industrial greatness and which has a reputation and a history unsurpassed. I believe that the policies which will be put forward by the Conservative Government will be constructive and helpful. I do not share the apprehensions of hon. Members opposite who have spoken on Tuesday's measures. I have already had the privilege of seeing some of my constituents who are miners, who are not at all alarmed but believe that we have a Government with guts, imagination and determination to tackle real problems, who


accept this and who believe, too, that the Government will not neglect them and their interests. I believe that, and I shall do all in my power, if it is necessary, to make sure that we honour this great industry which has served our country so well. Its rôle may be diminishing, but it is a rôle which should never be forgotten.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: May I first of all congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who made a very fine maiden speech. Those of us who have got to know him since he came to the House recognise not only his mental stature but the force and conviction with which he can establish cases which are Socialist and very dear to his heart.
1 congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) for the force and clarity with which he put the miners' case in a most illuminating opening speech. I am sure that, whatever the views of hon. Members opposite, it will be read by the South Wales miners with very great delight, that it will carry a message of solidarity to them and will help them through the stormy struggles which are to come in the next couple of months. I feel sure that the thinking in that opening speech will be the theme of many a miners' lodge meeting in the next couple of weeks.
It seemed to me that in some parts of his speech the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) thought that he could divorce the question of coal from miners. It would be rather awkward to try to secure coal without miners. They dig the stuff. It seemed to me also that some hon. Members have tended to show a sort of cloying unction to try to smooth miners, to try to hand out an apparent compassion to them. As the son of a miner, and living among miners, let me tell them that this is the last thing that any miner wants. What he wants is justice. This he will fight for strongly.
I should like to carry on the theme developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover on the attitudes which have formulated the miners' thinking, and to examine where that thinking is likely to take us in terms of this industry

unless we do something about the situation. We cannot divorce coal from miners, and therefore a study of the miners is the first and most important thing. Then we look at the industry and find out what we know of the men who operate the industry.
Today we are in the tragic situation where in the Durham coalfield there are 9,000 men on strike. Just before lunch-time on the tape we got the message that the South Wales Miners' Executive has called a special conference at Porthcawl tomorrow and will be recommending strike action throughout the whole of the Welsh coalfields. This is the situation which is developing, and we must analyse it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover touched on some of these matters and I should like to try to pick up one or two of his threads.
On the question of redundancy, a worker in the South-East or the Midlands who becomes redundant in his factory can walk up the road and get into another factory. He has had his redundancy pay. But the Coal Board treats the whole of the industry as a single unit, and if a miner becomes redundant in one colliery he is pushed to another colliery. Very often that colliery is on the jeopardy list and is due to close. Then he is shoved into another colliery. He goes through this heartbreaking process of being pushed from one colliery to another until eventually he reaches the end of the road in complete redundancy, or else he gives up the ghost, leaves the industry and becomes unemployed if he is too old to be retrained. This is what generally happens.
There is a psychology about miners which one has to understand by living with them. This is a tough industry, but it is one in which men take great pride of physical achievement. They tend to look upon their pit almost as a personal possession. In spite of the toughness of their lives, many of them come to love their collieries. They develop tremendous loyalties and a great comradeship in the toughness of their risky industry.
These are factors which are completely upset when men are pushed around from one colliery to another until the point when they are finally redundant. We ought to show more understanding of the thinking in these men's minds. After all, we owe a debt of gratitude to the past,


just as we must have regard for the present and the future.
This is the industry which made possible the first Industrial Revolution, the industry on which were based the great accumulations of wealth in this country during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We should have some regard for the people who think that they are lucky to retire at 65 but who so often are not fit to retire because they are pneumoconiotics or silicotics or have suffered in some way or other because of the enormously high risk of accident in their industry. The incidence of disablement in coal mining is so high that there are parts of the South Wales coalfield in which the proportion of disabled men employed is as large as 24 per cent.
That is one factor in a complex of factors affecting coal miners. At the same time, the miner has seen his industry pass through a period of revolutionary change such as we have not seen in any industry since the Industrial Revolution. The pace of pit closure has been astronomical. Redundancies have occurred at an alarming pace. The labour force has shrunk by hundreds of thousands. These men have gone through a period which would have broken the morale of most others. But they did not break, and this is one of the things for which we should honour them.
We should honour them, too, because they retain their sense of responsibility. We have heard a lot in the debate today about productivity. This is an industry which, since nationalisation, has never failed to raise its productivity in any year, and sometimes the increases have been outstanding. There has not been a national strike in the industry since 1926. It is an industry in which, in my part of the country, the constitution of the miners' organisation, which goes back to 1903, has built into it so many democratic checks and balances that at every stage the process of going back to the pits and consulting the miners themselves must be followed before any decision is taken.
Having a sense of responsibility of this kind, the miners have looked on while other industries in which the sense of responsibility has not been so great have achieved great rewards for their workers. Over the years, the miner has watched himself slip from being about second in

the wage index of manual workers at the end of the 1940s to sixteenth now, almost propping up the whole inglorious league of underpaid workers.
These are the factors which are causing a crisis in the industry's manpower. It is already upon us. Juvenile recruitment has picked up a little, but it is nowhere near enough. In most pits one meets middle-aged and elderly miners. The flow of recruits is not sufficient, and we shall not get them unless we correct some of the factors which, in my opinion, are destroying the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale made some closely relevant points in discussing the social aspects of this question, for it is the social impact upon them which will worsen the miners' situation. They will now knit political militancy into their industrial militancy, and there will be serious times ahead for this Government unless good sense is exercised, unless the Government see to it that some of the points in the Coal Bill are strengthened and necessary additions are made to it. There should be serious reconsideration of the capital restructuring of the industry, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, echoing the official policy of the National Union of Mineworkers, which arose originally, I believe, out of the thinking of the South Wales miners when they put it forward at an annual conference of the miners of Great Britain.
There is a viable future for coal at least for the next two or three decades. Moreover, there could be a fine future apart from that, for there are other uses for coal besides burning it. Few people seem to think of that.
Let us look to the future of the industry. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South said about productivity and so on. I am not here to defend the Coal Board. Indeed, our last debate on coal was critical, initiated by me after I had been lucky enough to draw No. 1 in the Ballot for Private Members' Motions. It was a critical Motion, critical both of the Board and of some aspects of my own party's attitude towards the industry.
If we accept that coal mining is to be a viable industry, we must set about evolving a coherent fuel policy in which


we set out the position of coal in relation to the new finds, or possible new finds, of oil and further reserves of natural gas in the North Sea. We must decide where we want coal to go. We must play the game by the industry, recognising that it has a service content and, what is more, that it can make a great contribution not only to the nation's economy but to our society, too, through the type of people who come from the coalfields. One could call to mind many illustrious names in this connection.
Our mining communities are dear to us, but many of them have been destroyed in Scotland and in Durham, and in Wales, too, we see them in danger of disappearing. If we are to preserve those which remain, we must see that the industry on which they depend is looked after. We accept that it must become economic, but it must not be savaged as it has been savaged over far too many years. Every miner feels bitter about this. Why, he asks, do we still have to pay? We make a profit, an annual profit of about £30 million, yet we pay back interest to the former private owners. The pits which they owned are now closed, nothing is being produced there, yet they still receive large compensation for what they once owned. This is crucifying the industry. The repayment of interest on Government borrowing is leading to a situation in which, from having a profit of about £30 million, we end up with a deficit of about £9 million.
These are factors which would break the morale of any industry. The party opposite must heed the miners' warning voice and do something about them. I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench the right hon. Gentleman who has some connections with Wales. We are greatly concerned about creating a balanced economy in our region and about preserving the best of our collieries. We recognise the value of coal to our economy, but the industry needs forms of retraining, and we are very much afraid of Tuesday's White Paper and of what will happen in our communities if the replacement of investment grants by investment allowances stops the trickle of industry which has been coming into the Welsh coalfield.
I hope that the Coal Industry Bill will have a smooth passage and that it

will be very much improved. The Government should take a far more positive lead in the coalfields than they are doing.
In 1926, when the coalminers struck and a national strike led to a very dangerous political situation, it was the miners of Wales who stayed out for a further six months after the strike was called off, with no social security benefits, with nothing at all except their guts to see them through. The guts are still there, and hon. Members opposite and their Government should be warned that if they try the miners' guts too far they will suffer.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I owe the House an explanation and apology for not having been here for the whole debate, but I had to be in my constituency today and have only recently returned. I have returned because this is a coal debate, and, as many of those present who are very familiar faces in coal debates will know, I have not missed such a debate since I have been a Member. One reason for this is that I come from a small area of the Kent coalfield, and the second is that until recently I had a big pit in my constituency. It was closed a year ago.
I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) said. I remember him opening the debate some months ago to which he has referred, and I have heard him speak about coal on other occasions. He speaks with knowledge, from experience, and with conviction and absolute honesty. Many of the things he says must be remembered for their real value. I respect them. In particular, the hon. Gentleman said that we must play the game by the coal industry.
I cannot claim to be recognised as a typical miners' M.P. I have not worked in the pits; I have only visited them and the miners. As I have told the House before, I had the honour to serve in the war with a whole battery of Fifeshire miners, so I learned something about the value of miners above ground as well as underground. I can never give up my affection and admiration for these men. That is why I say that whatever we do in our consideration of what is economically right for our country we must play the game by this industry.
We are talking about an industry in decline. That is a terrible thing to have to say, but that is what the National Coal Board has to face. It is a difficulty which its chairman, his directors and all his staff and all the miners must face. The industry is declining at the rate of about 10 per cent. a year of its total employed manpower. We are told that it must not be more, but it has been more at times. That 10 per cent. represents a rate of about 30,000 men a year displaced from employment, from the only livelihood they have known, to find another job, perhaps to move house to start life afresh.
I still face these problems daily, because I see the unemployed miners in my constituency. Admittedly, when my pit was closed a year ago the National Coal Board made proper and generous provision for the thousand or so men who were displaced. Some of that provision was redundancy payment to men of 55. We accept that the board is generous economically in relation to the sort of provision other people get, but this is not enough when men of 55 are left to lean on their garden gates. The miner of 55 leans on the garden gate and says to me, "What is the future for me now? I accept that the Board did the best it could. I know that all of you in Parliament have a very difficult task." Miners have a way of talking fairly and reasonably. When we sit in Select Committee, as I did, to look at the coal industry run-down problem, and when we examine all the economic problems, perhaps we do not take into account sufficiently the effect on a man made redundant in the modern world, left aside from the mainstream of progress at 55.
When we talk about the industry today, the whole of the mining industry is listening to what we say. We all speak with some emotion on the subject. Perhaps the sort of emotion we generate goes over the heads of those on the Front Bench who have to make the decisions. I am in a difficult position today, because for the past four or five years I have been sitting on the other side of the Chamber, able to criticise Members like the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), who is sitting opposite me now. Now things have changed, and my own colleagues on the Front Bench have the decision to make. But I cannot

modify my emotion or my views on the question, because I believe that the coal industry must be viable for another 30 years, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly said.
During the recess, while on a visit to the North-East, I went to a new mine that is a £35 million investment. It is not a coal mine but a potash mine. Despite all the problems and dangers of going underground, it is still worth while for some industries to dig down to extract something which is very valuable to our economy. In this case it is being done by the chemical industry. The mine I saw will not be in operation for another year or 18 months. It will be organised in the most modern, scientific manner, so that it will be viable, and it will employ several hundred men.
I believe that the same thing can apply to our coal industry. We live in a four-fuel economy. We are changing over from coal to oil, from coal to gas and from coal to nuclear power. Each of those three other fuels sounds more exciting. North Sea gas sounds exciting. Oil sounds more economic, and it can be proved to be so sometimes. Nuclear power has the sound of the world of tomorrow and the great future of the power industry of the whole world. But coal is not dead yet. It can still be efficient, and efficiency has been the aim of both the National Coal Board and the miners. I remember witnessing for myself what happened in my pit in Kent when a jeopardy notice was placed on it. The miners there worked tremendously hard, and doubled their output per man-shift. Still it was not enough. They got up to something like 48 cwt. and it was still not enough. But it was efficient. It was a demonstration that efficiency could be achieved.
Efficiency is not only required in management. It is required in the execution of management by the men who risk and the men who work and sweat to achieve the miraculous and difficult objective of productivity. But I say to my right hon. Friends and to the House—let us not forget the fourth fuel, that fuel which has fallen to fourth place and was once the lifeblood and strength of our great country, as the hon. Gentleman said. We must remember, as we run this industry down, the problems which the men and their wives and families and all those


associated with them face whenever we say that for some economic reason a change must take place.
A debate in this House on coal can cause concern in the whole mining industry and even bitterness. A statement from a Minister or from the National Coal Board can cause the worrying to begin. But the event which causes real distress in the coal industry is the jeopardy notice. A jeopardy notice goes on for three months. For three months after the issue of the notice, the pit has to pull its socks up and prove by production and efficiency that it can be viable. If it cannot do so—perhaps for geological reasons or because the productivity targets are so high today for coal to compete with modern other fuels—after three months the notice is confirmed and then there is only another three months for the board, the Department of Employment and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to make provision to get other employment for those men who are going to be put out of work. Sometimes the board will find them employment in other pits and sometimes it will say that they must take earlier retirement at 55, with all the sadness and wrongness which that can produce.
I am concerned about the short notice of closure of a pit in this declining industry. I have travelled to other areas apart from Kent to see what is happening, and in many there are opportunities, for example, in the electrical industry for those who have been trained in electrical engineering in the pits. There are opportunities for training and retraining in crafts and skills in order to obtain a job with an equal rate of return to the displaced miner.
But I will now be parochial, and I make no excuse for it. Three pits still operate in Kent, struggling to be viable with good productivity but with some difficulties because of geological problems and because of water. Nevertheless, they are struggling to be viable and to produce the coal we need—coking coal for smelting in the steel industry. But I am concerned because we are talking of a declining industry and some day, some time in the future, perhaps in ten or twenty years' time, a decision will be made about pits in Kent.
Where is the alternative employment in Kent? There is none at all. There is no other industry in that part of Kent. There is an insufficient infrastructure of roads and communications for men to travel far, perhaps 20 or 30 miles, if that is called a reasonable distance to travel to work and back every day. But if one of these pits, which are within a five or six miles radius of Dover, was to be put on jeopardy notice and subsequently closed, perhaps 1,000 men would be put into the arms of the Department of Employment and there is nothing that it could do. In my opinion, it would take a good ten years to build up the small and limited industrial background in that part of England that would be necessary.
I make this parochial point because it is not only in Kent that this sort of problem arises. As we decline any industry we must see that we create other job opportunities in other industries, and not necessarily just light industry but industry which will provide the employment of men who are skilled and often still young. The men displaced are not all 55; they are 45, or 35 or even 25 because one cannot run a pit with men in their fifties. Constant recruitment is necessary and this has been going on in Kent as well, with heavy advertising by the Board to get men into the industry, because, without a full labour force, a pit is not viable—and only by keeping viable and by having, therefore, a full labour force can that pit keep up. Once a pit declines, it comes under the gimlet eye of the board, and perhaps rightly so because the Board has to argue that it cannot dig coal and sell it at a loss. But I am very concerned indeed that in our future plans for the rundown of any industry we include plans for the build-up of other industries. Above all, in Kent this is vitally necessary.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: It would be remiss of me not to congratulate my two hon. Friends, both miners like myself, on their maiden speeches. First, there was my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson). I am sure that we all agree that he gave an earnest and sincere speech and one which was also very informative. I sincerely hope that, as time goes on, we shall enjoy many more speeches from him. Next came


my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who gave a very interesting speech also and again we look forward to hearing him in future, particularly about the coal mining industry, because, having recently come from the trade union movement, he has a vast experience which will be valuable to those of us who have been away from the trade union movement for some time.
As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) recalled, the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill was held on 9th April last. I had the good fortune to be able to make a contribution in that debate. This afternoon I had intended to make a long speech but in view of the numbers who wish to take part in the debate I shall be very brief indeed. The debate on 9th April was considered at the time by the then Minister to be very harmonious, with only a few notes of controversy. That shows that the then Opposition were in sympathy with the Coal Bill of 1970 which provided for an extension of the powers of the Coal Act, 1967. This harmony occurred simply because most people, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), felt that it was a necessary Bill and that an extension of many of the powers to give assistance and grants to the industry was required.
On 22nd July I and a number of my colleagues signed a Motion expressing concern about the Government's refusal to introduce another Bill to replace that debated last April. That was because we were anxious to know what was to be in the new Bill. We felt that the delay might be because the Government did not wish to be as generous as the Labour Government had intended to be. This afternoon the Secretary of State said that he would be generous. I welcomed the Bill earlier in the year, but with reservations, and I should like him to be more generous than that Measure. I hope that the Government do not intend to conjure up some aims which would make serious alterations in the proposals which we debated in April, with resulting adverse circumstances for those who work in the industry and serious deterioration in its prospects.
I agree with those many hon. Members who have said that the coal industry is still a key industry. As the Secretary of State said, it is still responsible for 50

per cent of the country's fuel requirements. In the present climate of the threat of strikes and actual strikes, this has become more apparent, and it is gratifying to see that the public do not condemn the miners for their present demands, realising that mining is a dirty, dangerous, but essential job. There is still much public sympathy for the miners.
The miner is now suffering for his great loyalty and sacrifice in the past. His reward for that sacrifice and loyalty has been to slip down to 16th place in the table of industrial wages. What has been his reward for adapting himself to mechanisation and modern mining methods, for increased production in the last few years to an extent which cannot be matched by any other industry, his reward for not holding the country to ransom in the decade immediately following the Second World War when he could have demanded greatly increased wages and improved conditions?
If the miner had not been so loyal and responsible, he might have found himself in a much more advantageous financial position now. The finances of the Coal Board could have been much better. The situation then was "coal at any price". Instead of demanding high prices for coal, the miners and the Coal Board agreed to hold back. I remember that when I was a miner during that decade all miners received an individual letter from the Prime Minister, the late Earl Attlee, asking us to give up our five-day week temporarily and to work on Saturdays. Most miners in Great Britain responded to that request.
The miners now realise their weakness in being too loyal and in making too many sacrifices. This is now being reflected in their demands. I hope that the Government will take note of this and act accordingly and bring in the Bill, not only as it was in April of this year, but a better and more generous Bill.
I want to raise a matter which does not directly affect my constituency but which affects miners and which really is in the province of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), who is unable to be here tonight. We have heard much about the viability of the mining industry, about how we could instil confidence into the miners throughout Britain. In my part of the world, in the county of Fife, we have a colliery,


one of two or three left in the whole county, where 10 years ago 26,000 men were employed. This pit has only six years' life left in it. The miners' union and the area director of the Coal Board recognise that the pit will close soon. It is a dilemma for the men working in the area.
Those who are interested in the industry will remember the fire in the Michael Colliery, when a huge, productive and profitable colliery was lost as a result of this disaster. In the Frances Colliery at Dysart it will be possible to get about 20 million tons of coal by digging fresh seams. This would cost about £2½ million. It would take three years to prepare, and it means that if we want to continue with the jobs for about 1,400 men then the project must be started. The Coal Board has decided that it cannot give the men the assurance that this project will go ahead.
I have written to Lord Robens, and his answer is simply that the board cannot say at this time whether the project will go on. He says that in three years' time, if market trends are good, there is a probability. This is not satisfactory for the men because in three years the best seams will be worked out and the pit gradually run down. The men will leave the industry, thus accelerating the rundown, and the pit will be finished. I hope that the Government will take this into account in their new Bill, that they will afford the industry more generous grants for restructuring because this would help a great deal towards keeping many of the so-called uneconomic pits going for a longer period. I sincerely hope that the Government can allay the fears of many miners in this House by bringing the new Bill in as quickly as possible.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: When I had the opportunity to make my maiden speech the occasion was not a suitable one on which to honour one of the traditions of the House, namely, that full reference be made to one's constituency. I think that I can remedy the situation on this occasion.
I recognise that hon. Members may be surprised by my rising and catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it

might be taken as a hint that Middleton and Prestwich has a stake in the great mining industry. My constituency has no pits. The connection between Prestwich borough and the Whitefield urban district, in my constituency and the mining industry is that next door to us there is an important colliery. Therefore, our next door neighbour lends to us the consequences of the mining. A large part of the constituency suffers from subsidence as a result of the mining. There is potenitally worse to come as very little of these two areas will be unaffected by subsidence. I am not sure that this problem is sufficiently deeply understood. I should like to think that it will be taken fully into account when the future scope and shape of the coal industry is determined.
I am concerned about coal in relation to the community as a whole. The powers of the Coal Board and the community are perhaps slightly imbalanced. The Coal Board undertakes to remedy damage to land and buildings which suffer from subsidence, to pay for temporary accommodation when people are rendered homeless as a result of subsidence and to pay damages if anyone is killed or seriously or permanently disabled as a result of subsidence. But that is as far as it goes. The Coal Board does not compensate for diminution of house values resulting from subsidence in the area generally, and it does not compensate a person who wants to move and finds that his property brings in much less than the market price because of mining blight. I have known of people who have been prevented from moving because of the possible consequences of selling their house at such a low price. This damage is just as real to the people concerned as that which is recognised by the Coal Board.
There are examples in my constituency of serious consequential losses. Damage to a reservoir will be repaired, but there will be no compensation for the cost of alternative water supplies. If a factory is made unusable by mining subsidence, the premises will be put right, but no claim can be made for other clearly identifiable losses. It is sometimes argued that it is a question of calculating remoteness of damage, but there are very clear rules in common law which can be drawn upon to overcome any difficulty in this regard.
The extent of the damage in the borough of Prestwich is very severe. Land is left sterile on which houses could otherwise be built. People are being deprived of homes and the council gets no compensation for the extra loan charges it incurs. Houses are demolished and the land, it may be advised, cannot be sensibly built upon for the moment. There is loss of rents to the council. There is loss of homes, something which is incalculable to the people of Prestwich.
There can be no swimming bath in the borough because the possible extent of mining subsidence would prevent one from being built which would be proof against subsidence. The answer that I have heard—that the people of Prestwich could wait until there is local government reorganisation and then they might find themselves part of a larger unit on which they would draw for land—is one of the most absurd that I have ever heard, as anyone who understands the geography of that area will agree, because there is no spare land going.
The second point I want to make in connection with the board's powers is that it has been entrusted by Parliament with a discretionary power to require precautionary works to be done, accepting that the cost will then fall upon the board. This discretionary power has never been exercised. If a discretionary power is given, it implies that the power should be considered on every occasion, otherwise it is no longer being used as intended as a discretionary power. Developers, therefore, whether they be private or local authority, are taking precautions at their own expense sensibly, because it is better to meet the extra costs now of protection than it is to accept repairs later. As an example, the borough council is currently building 54 dwellings where the contract figure is over £209,000 and no less than £36,000 of that figure is taken up by the cost of doing precautionary work. This is a heavy burden falling upon the ratepayers of Prestwich who happen to have had the good fortune or the bad fortune to be in the particular direction of seams coming from a neighbouring colliery.
My third point leads on to the question of the environment today. We are becoming more conscious of the environment and its quality. We are taking care in many other spheres to protect it. I

believe that the ill effects on the community caused by mining subsidence ought in this context to be given greater consideration. I believe that we should be looking at the place of coal in modern society not just in terms of the alternative fuels available. I hope that we will remember that there are thousands of people who are being affected by the consequences of mining subsidence from the great coal industry.
I have no words to say against the coal industry, but I hope that in the consideration of its future the effect upon others, often very deleterious effects, will be taken into consideration and that we will have a proper balance between the coal industry and the interests of the community at large.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I have the fortunate privilege of being able to speak in this debate from the point of view of a man who until a few months ago was a practising colliery manager, although I hasten to tell the House that I do not claim for one minute to be a representative colliery manager. Indeed, I have sometimes felt in recent years that I was anything but representative and that my colleagues more often than not regarded me as a kind of harmless eccentric to be tolerated with sympathy, if not understanding. It is a disconcerting feeling, and certainly a feeling of exposure, to find oneself saying that they are all out of step bar me, but this is the position in which I, as a mining engineer on the staff of the National Coal Board, have found myself for the past 15 years.
Before I explain this a little more fully, there is one point that I ought to make very clearly so that no one will misunderstand me. I have been employed in the mining industry for 23 years. My father before me was a coal miner and his father before him. I have known fine men in the mining industry, and I like to think that I have gained something from my work underground. So it hardly needs saying where my heart lies.
If I appear critical of what goes on in the industry, it is not out of a perverse wish to knock it when it is half down, nor because I am insensitive to the triumphs of the last 23 years, but precisely because I believe that the industry can and, more than that, must rise again to take up what


I see as its essential and its greater role in the country's economic life for the rest of the century and beyond. Coal in Britain has been in decline for much of this century. There have been ups and downs sure enough, but the worm has been in the wood for nearly seventy years.
I happen to think that the slow start of the decline was marked by the introduction of the sliding scale towards the end of the last century, and I once put to some incredulous mining engineers the interesting question of how much economic harm had been done to the coal industry by the obsession with wage rates brought about by tying them, through the sliding scale, to the selling price of coal. There was thought to be an exclusive relationship between production costs and wage rates. It was accepted by everyone, men and managers, without question: it was in the bone. So that when the need arose to reduce costs, wages were immediately thought of, and productivity, for example, was something no one thought of.
It has taken until the last decade or so to shift this prejudice, and I am not so sure that in its more developed forms it has been fully removed yet. It is only ten years ago that the common boast of many a colliery manager was how his rippers could shift vast quantities of rock with their shovels and if they were paid another sixpence on the tonnage rate they would then shift an extra 5 per cent. One gained the impression of an industry living through a kind of dynosauric age, breeding men with teeny-weeny heads perched on hugely muscled shoulders, and twitching in Pavlovian response to the jingling of moneybags, but I know the House will readily see that this is a travesty of the tremendous engineering skills and achievements of the mining engineers since the war, and I hasten to say that I am second to none in my pride at the technical achievements of British mining.
But we need always to be reminded that the paradox of modern life remains: highly sophisticated technical engineering does not automatically bring with it highly sophisticated social engineering, or, to use Lord Robens' phrase, human engineering; and it is in this field that the secret lies, I believe, for a reversal in the long-term decline of coal.
I should like to pay tribute to Lord Robens here, and it is a very sincere tribute, shared, I am sure, by everyone in the coal industry who understands anything at all. There have been—indeed, there are—voices in coal which have criticised some of Lord Robens' actions. He would be the first one, I am sure, to admit that, like the rest of us, he is a son of Adam, with mortal man's capacity for error; but there can be no doubt whatsoever that when he took the job of Chairman of the Coal Board the coal industry was really down, and that he picked it up and breathed life back into it. British coal will always be in his debt for that and much else besides. The interesting thing is that in those early days he was overwhelmingly concerned with human engineering on an immediate, direct and grand scale. It was a once-more-unto-the-breach exercise calculated to reach every man's heart directly, and it was skilfully and sincerely carried out and worked miracles. But to sustain let alone develop human engineering to a high pitch so that it becomes a pervasive quality throughout any large nation is another kettle of fish, especially in an organisation like the National Coal Board where men have been reared on a tradition of rudimentary social skills and where men take an occasionally perverse pride in acrimonious disputation. But this above all is the area to which the mining fraternity must direct its energies.
The lead must come from management, and in my more sombre moments I sometimes fear that the imaginative leap into the new kind of human industrial relationships might be beyond the range of mining engineers who pride themselves above all on being practical men. There is still in the mining industry, for example, a hankering for a return to the old piece-work system of payment, which is a tacit admission of failure to awaken a team spirit in a job of all jobs where team work and team spirit are crucial; where men have to use their own judgment to make decisions which cannot be programmed for them.
There is still a management philosophy abroad in the mining industry of control in the old sense, the sense of one individual laying down a specification upon another individual in the minutest detail. The theory is that operations at the coal


face are to be planned to such fine degree that the face workers' actions will be accounted for half minute by half minute, that the decisions will be programmed for the miner who has to respond like a cog-wheel in chain of gears. I believe that this is a profoundly mistaken approach, only partly mitigated by a formal process of consultation which in practice sometimes emphasises the formalities more than the consultation.
There is yet again a slavish acceptance of at least the mechanics, the plumbing, of the now fashionable management by objectives, with at the same time a catastrophic failure to grasp that the whole point of management by objectives is to secure men's commitment by enabling them to play a fuller rôle in the whole decision-making process. For men working in a concern to be committed to that concern it is essential for them to see the whole concern, to understand and to have power positively to influence the business end of the concern. I hope the mining industry will agree that it is not good engineering which is the end product, or good purchasing, or good ventilation, or good carpentry, or even the filling in tidily of the appropriate squares in the management objectives return with no smudges or blots. I am sorry to say that we have too many men already beavering away busily keeping their noses clean. I sometimes wish many of the senior men would say to their subordinates, "Go on, be a devil." It would do a world of good in the National Coal Board administration.
Coal rightly has a strong claim on governmental assistance. We shall rue the day when we lose too much of our productive capacity. I have refrained in this debate from speaking about this particular issue. Rather I have been anxious to speak about what the industry and in particular the management of the industry can do for itself. It is not any more the engineering that matters. Miracles have already been performed. It is now the realities of human motivation which must exercise the imagination of the leaders of the industry.
There are a few people at the top who know what it is all about; I sometimes suspect that they could be counted with the thumbs of two hands. But if coal is to do anything—and for the sake of

the country it must—then this is where the leadership must exercise its arts to the full. The few people at the top, the thumbs of the two hands, must see to it that as they aspire to get their inspiration down through the prim and proper hierarchical chain of the mining industry this inspiration is not translated so that it turns out at the end of the line to be something to do with the plumbing. There is an abundance of first-class mining engineers in the mining industry. There is a serious shortage of good managers.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: I am well aware of the demands of time, and as a railwayman's son I shall try to keep to the timetable.
There are two particular points that I wish to mention. I feel that we must examine the current wage dispute in the mining industry and look at some of the problems facing the industry, and, more especially, at the problems of those who earn their living in it.
The wrath which we are now seeing in the coalfields of Scotland, Yorkshire, Durham, South Wales and elsewhere is due not only to the wage situation but also to the treatment which the industry has had from successive Governments, and I do not absolve the previous Administration from that criticism. The last few months in the coalfields have seen an agony of choice going on in the homes of mining families.
Last Friday I was at a pit in my constituency. At the coal face I met a day wage worker who has a family of four. He handed me a pay slip which was made up of the working of three days plus 12s. 6d. "water" money, and it showed that he took home £15 2s. There are many thousands of miners in much the same situation, and they have a great agony of choice when it comes to voting for or against in a strike ballot. They have no financial fat on which to live, especially at this time of year. The fact that the ballot resulted in more than 55 per cent. of our miners voting for strike action is indicative of their wrath.
In these days of coal shortage, I do not think that the miners have failed the country. What has happened is that successive Governments have failed the miners in past years by not facing the implications involved in the complete


ownership and control of a very large State industry, especially as it affects the people who earn their living in it.
In an Adjournment debate earlier this week, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that he did not think that it was so much a moral matter as an economic and social matter. He is right that it is an economic and social matter, but he is quite wrong if he thinks that it is not a moral matter. Moral must come into any judgment of the mining industry. It is a deliberately created creature of Government, and everything that has happened to the mining industry has been the result of Government decisions, right or wrong.
The industry was told to expand. It expanded. It was told to contract. It contracted. It was told to sell coal to private industry at a price which was almost less than it cost to bring the stuff to the pit head. It did so. It has subsidised this country and its industry for years, and did so particularly in the mid-1950s. It was denied the commercial freedom which operates in the private sector and is so vehemently extolled by the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and he must face the consequences. If he does not allow a nationalised industry complete commercial freedom—and previous Tory Administrations did not allow it—it cannot be right for him to demand the application of commercial criteria to the mine workers' wages.
When the right hon. Gentleman insists that productivity is the chief measure, he does not do the miners a service. In taking complete control of an industry, one implication of doing that is that if we demand that the industry should keep prices low, as we have in the case of the coal industry over a number of years, and we also demand that wages should be kept low because of that, possibly we have a responsibility to pay a social wage in addition to the commercial wage earned by a man in that industry.
The coal industry is not likely to dominate the energy market in the mid-1970s in the way that it did in the mid-1950s. Coal is a strategic necessity for an island trading nation which has limited natural fuel resources, even taking into account the finds of gas and oil in the North Sea. The Guardian said yesterday that certain

companies involved in North Sea activities are now handing back their certificates of exploration. Oil is as much a political commodity in the 1970s as a commercial commodity. Britain is politically vulnerable in obtaining oil supplies, and they create balance of payments difficulties.
In the nuclear power programme, we are presented with the spectacle of the Magnox stations running well under capacity. It appears that we treat machines better than men. If miners run at the same capacity as the Magnox stations, they are criticised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mining remains extremely important. The present mood of self-doubt among our miners is passing. I think that we shall see the first indication of that at the next annual conference of the National Union of Mineworkers when a change is made to that part of its constitution which decrees that a two-thirds' majority is required to pull out men on strike. Miners will adopt new tactics in a modern, highly complicated industrial society. Those who extol the virtues of the operation of market forces on prices cannot complain bitterly when men operate those same market forces in terms of the price which they can get for their labour.
When the Minister comes to wind up, I hope that he will clarify the Government's attitude towards their proposed Coal Bill. In the recent Adjournment debate the Under-Secretary of State said:
… the Government have announced that they will introduce a Coal Bill containing provisions to extend the redundancy pensions scheme for miners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 190.]
However, there is more to the expected Coal Bill than that. There is the need to extend support to the industry in terms of additional coal burn by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the question of aiding the National Coal Board in relation to certain uneconomic pits.
I ask the Minister, without giving us chapter and verse of the Coal Bill tonight, to answer this simple question: is that principally all that we shall get in the Coal Bill; or are we to get a three-part one: help for redundant miners, help for additional coal burn, and help for the N.C.B. in relation to uneconomic pits?

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: It is always interesting to participate in a coal debate. I have taken part in many in the past 18 years. But I always feel that a coal debate fairly reflects the differences between the parties in the House. On our side, we have many clamouring to get into the debate; many who have been bred for the industry and worked in it. There are 20 miners' M.P.s in particular who are keen to participate. But, on the other side, we have a slackening response, not many present, and no one with practical experience of the industry.
I thought, when the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies), the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, opened the debate this afternoon, how ironic and, indeed, how tragic it is at this time that we should have an ex-chairman of the C.B.I. as the spokesman for coal both in Government and in this House. The right hon. Gentleman said nothing new today. He gave no indication when we shall get the Coal Bill and he made no observations on the critical state of the industry, especially about what is happening during the course of this day. I thought that he might have given an inkling of what the new Tory Coal Bill will contain. At least that might have given some hope to the miners.
During the debate we have had two maiden speeches from this side of the House. First, there was my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson), for 40 years a Scottish miner. I thought that the tribute paid to him from the other side of the House was right. He spoke feelingly of his old industry. He made a serious contribution. It was both constructive and helpful. No doubt he will become an asset both in the House and in Committee when making contributions in future, particularly on fuel and power topics.
Secondly, we had a maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), one of the younger breed if miners. He spoke with authority and great confidence. His speech was full of facts. I thought, as I rested on the Bench, that in due course the Government will respect not only his interventions but his forceful oratory. I thought that we had two useful additions

not only to the miners but to this side of the House.
The situation in the coal mining industry is grim. Indeed, it is getting worse. If a national coalfield stoppage takes place, it will have serious repercussive consequences on the miners' future and the competitive position of the National Coal Board, and it could noticeably rock the economy.
The coal industry has had a disappointing year. Production fell by 13 million tons and productivity slumped from 9 per cent. to 2·1 per cent. in the last financial year. We know that an unofficial strike took place in 1969, losing 2· million tons, equivalent to gross profits of about £13 million, contributing to the subsequent overall deficit for last year of £26·3 million. Therefore, the industry is in debt. Output per man shift is not forthcoming. Indeed, it is very much off course. If the hopes of the Chairman of the N.C.B. are to come true, that he would like to be able to produce 135 million tons of coal by 1975, he at least must get an 8½ per cent. increase in productivity every year. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) was right that even with the increase in recent weeks, which has now gone up to 4 per cent., it will be much too low to achieve the Coal Board's target.
Morale at the moment is at rock bottom and recruitment is very difficult. But, above all, we have seen the N.U.M. for the first time in its history unanimously ballot for a general strike.
The situation in the coal mining industry could hardly be worse. Why is it that after years of industrial peace, and no official stoppages, the acceptance of mechanisation, and an increase in productivity at a faster rate than that in almost any other industry in Britain, it has come to this? A number of hon. Members touched on this issue. I think that initially, but not completely, it is because of the price that miners have paid for co-operation over these last years, when machines were displacing men, pits were closing at an alarming rate, villages were being virtually abandoned, and men and their families were being shunted around Britain. During this fully co-operative phase their wages have slumped below those of almost every industrial worker, and now all that pent-up frustration is


bursting through from every county coalfield demanding that their leaders match the successful claims of the dockers, the car workers and the dustmen.
Does all this make sense? In my opinion, yes. I should not want that to appear to be an irrational and irresponsible reply, because I think that it is worthy of deeper analysis. First, Britain needs coal and will do so for many years to come. At the moment 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of power stations generation is dependent upon coal. The competitive fuels of oil, nuclear power and now North Sea gas, although eating into the established coal market, will take a long time to command between them that huge slice of the energy market. Meanwhile, we must ensure that we keep a lively, robust and efficient coal industry. Failure to do this, and knowing that the other fuels cannot quickly bridge the gap, will result in our being faced with a fuel and power shortage which will initially slow down all economic growth and cost millions of pounds in hasty conversions, and if more oil, which is the quickest available fuel gap filler, has to be imported it will cost many millions in foreign exchange and adversely affect our balance of payments. The economy will suffer, and at a terrible cost, if we do not pay the proper price for coal. Also, the frightening by-product of the unmanageable, fast closure of colliers, with all the resulting social problems, would be too awful to contemplate.
The National Coal Board, no doubt with the Government's blessing, has refused the miners' total request. The N.U.M. asked for £22 for lower-paid underground miners who now receive a minimum wake of £16 per week. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover forcefully told the House, that means the maximum, too, because there are no extra bonuses or piecework attachments. The board offered £2 10s. to raise the wage to £18 10s. Those of us in the coalfields at the time knew that that would not be sufficient to quell the seething revolt in the mines. That piecemeal offer could never have given satisfaction.
The N.U.M. carried out its ballot, which required two-thirds of the votes cast to be in favour of official strike action. The two-thirds' target was not achieved, but there was a simple majority

of 55 per cent. in favour of an official strike. By any other union's rules and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, even by the Carr proposals, that would have been a call for a national coal strike.
Let us look at the figures: South Wales, 83 per cent. in favour; Scotland, 78 per cent.; Cumberland, 75 per cent.; Kent, 67 per cent.; Yorkshire, 60 per cent. I ask the House to reflect on those figures, bearing in mind that in those coalfields nearly every man underground and those who are most hard hit have cast their vote for official action. Those are massive majorities, but not sufficient. Engineers and mechanics, except in Scotland, white-collar workers and junior officials registered very small percentage votes, and consequently cut back the majority. I think that that will rankle in the minds of many miners for years to come. It was tragic. It was disappointing.
The N.U.M. leaders, backed by a simple majority—and, indeed, well over two-thirds in some counties—entered another round of negotiations and extracted 10s., and have since recommended that the membership accept it. Scotland has already rejected it; four pits there are already on strike. In Yorkshire there were 20,000 men on strike this morning. At a council meeting they have rejected it. In the South Wales collieries there was an unofficial strike this morning. Their executive, too, has rejected it.
This debate, as it happens, could not be more opportune. Indeed, I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not seize the opportunity to give some hopeful message to the miners. The situation in the industry is decidedly unhealthy and it is taking a bad turn at the moment. What perturbs me most is that with this change of Government it is likely to get worse. I say that for a number of reasons—first of all, the climate, for which the Government are responsible, in industrial relations. There has been a distinct change in the past three months. There are unfettered price rises to begin with, and allied with that, speeches against the nationalised industries, even flamboyant utterances by right hon. Gentlemen at the party conference. Indeed, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are, almost with a degree of arrogance, throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the unions on


industrial relations. We have the industrial reform Bill. A united T.U.C. is ready to campaign against it. Then there are attacks on welfare payments and threats to cut benefits, almost as if designed to hit the miner and his family.

Mr. Peter Emery: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Mason: In a moment. This is at a time when the miners are in revolt. It is a climate that is destined to breed industrial trouble and strife. Even in the final ballot, even if they accept, I would predict that, because of deliberate Government policy now emerging, within the next 18 months we shall have a critical situation developing in the industry.

Mr. Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he say, because it is not clear from his speech, whether with the biggest offer ever made to the National Union of Mineworkers by the National Coal Board, he believes that the miners ought to strike, or do the Official Opposition and he believe that the offer ought to be accepted?

Mr. Mason: I believe that the offer of £2 10s. already made is inadequate. The miners, because of their strike, have managed to get another 10s. I do not say that I wanted the strike, but I have given warnings about the consequences. I hope that a national coalfield strike never takes place. But the offer is piecemeal and it will prove inadequate. Even at this stage, if it is accepted, we shall get into another difficulty in 18 months' time or so.
A second point I want to mention is that we decreed that the coal industry was an essential core of Britain's fuel producers, and we took positive steps to protect and safeguard its future. I do not want to go through all the matters, such as writing off the debt, not allowing coal imports, a tax on oil imports of £2 a ton and so forth. We built a ring of protection around coal and gave it a safeguard. We brought in a Coal Industry Bill because we foresaw pit closures, terrible redundancies and the difficulties of alternative employment. We made available up to £133 million over that major transitional phase from 1967 to March of next year to alleviate the harshest of those consequences. These

measures within the Bill are very important, and I hope that the Minister for Industry, who I understand is to wind up the debate, will make some reference to them.
We introduced a redundant mineworkers' payments scheme. We allowed advance payments of pensions to redundant miners. We allowed a Government contribution of two-thirds of the cost of the Coal Board payments towards social costs. We made a payment to the National Coal Board if it would defer closures in uneconomic areas at the Government's request. Moreover, we brought in a scheme for extra coal burning under which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Gas Council burned an extra 7 million tons per year, thereby saving 15,000 miners' jobs.
It may be said that it was subsidy, direct or indirect, but that was the framework which we built, a framework for co-operation so that harmonious relations could develop between the union, the N.C.B. and the Government, because we felt this so essential in a diminishing extractive industry, yet one so important to the economy. This framework, and, hence, the atmosphere within that framework, is necessary in the coal industry in order to maintain morale and to maintain a working force. Our Coal Bill presented, and the Second Reading on 9th April promised, a continuance of those measures.
The Government have promised a Coal Bill for some continuing aid to the industry; but will it be exactly the same as ours? I put these questions specifically to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who is now Minister for Industry. First, what about the extra coal burning provisions? Second, what about the premature retirement of miners as a result of closures? Will that still be recognised? Third, what about the opportunities which we granted under our Bill for the Coal Board to take part in technical assistance overseas? Fourth, what about what he himself called in that debate the extraneous activities of the board—that is, exploring for gas and oil on the Continental Shelf? Will that provision remain, too?
It is apposite that the hon. Gentleman happens to be where he is, for all these matters were questioned by him in that


debate. Why has the Bill been so long delayed? Is it being redrafted? If so, I warn the Government that it could not come at a worse time, and they will only sour relations still further between the N.C.B. and the Government and between the industry and the Government, too.
With the Tories back in office, the miners have a right to be suspicious. Many of the old miners feel alarmed, looking back to the record of the last 13 years when the Tories were in office, for they closed 266 pits, 177,000 men left the industry, and they never paid a penny to the miners or the Coal Board. That is my second reason for fearing the consequences of the change of Government.
Third, as the Minister knows, the National Union of Mineworkers has been pressing for a reconsideration of the Coal Board's finances. I know that the package as a whole may be difficult, but I thought that we might have had a sympathtic reply at least on one request. My right hon. Friend who was then Paymaster-General promised the N.U.M. that he would consider the introduction of public dividend capital into National Coal Board financing. We have it with B.O.A.C. I introduced it in respect of the British Steel Corporation. If the Minister has the will and the determination, he, too, can beat the Treasury, especially if he has the miners and their industry at heart. I know about the tests so far, that it should be a cyclical industry, that it should have fluctuating returns, that it is always beneficial when the industry is at the bottom of a trade cycle, and so on, but I should have thought that the introduction of public dividend capital would be a method of helping the Coal Board.
I pressed the Minister by letter on this question, but on 29th September, I am sorry to say, he turned it down. At least on one test, the fluctuating returns test—the fluctuating fortunes of the Coal Board are there all right—a case could have been made out. It could immeasurably help its financing, and I had hoped that the Government, instead of turning it down so quickly, would give a more sympathetic response.
My fourth reason, Madam Chairman—[Laughter.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I only wish that the

Government changed hands as often as the Chair.
The fourth reason why I think that with the change of Government the situation in the mining industry will get worse is that there has been a shift in power station conversion policy. As Minister of Power I would not agree to conversions. I always felt strongly that a basic market was being taken away from the Coal Board and the miner, and even if stations were equipped for dual-firing I was highly suspicious of there being any genuine desire to convert back to coal.
On new power stations we must recognise—and the miners have faced up to this—that four fuels are now available and eligible. Therefore, the bidding, or the economic appraisal of the capital costs and running costs of oil, nuclear power, North Sea gas and coal, is fully assessed. The then Minister of Technology did approve of Hams Hall B being dual-fired with North Sea gas, with gas used when demand was low but coal still being used when demand was high. He also permitted the conversion of a very small station at Fulham on grounds of pollution, and two or three small, old, inefficient coal stations. But the present Government recently announced that three more power stations are to be switched to oil firing—Richborough, Aberthaw and Northfleet. Only two of those are to be dual-fired. This represents an initial loss to the coal industry of 2,300,000 tons of coal.
The first that the N.U.M. knew of this was when it was officially announced by the Government. There have been no talks at all, and it was a complete departure from past practice, a blatant disregard of the existence of the union. Also, no assurances have been given about dual-firing. Richborough is being switched completely to oil. That means a permanent loss to the coal industry of 500,000 tons. So the miners basic and most important market is being whittled down, and part of it, by deliberate Government action, is being lost for ever.
What is more, three more stations—West Thurrock, Kirkstall and Padiham—are now under consideration. Those stations jointly burn another 2,300,000 tons of coal.
In this regard, it is important to note that because of the C.E.G.B.'s difficulties


with some of its big stations, the 500 megawatt units—the boiler cracks, oxidisation of bolts in the new A.G.R.s and so on—the C.E.G.B. has had to burn more coal in the smaller and less efficient power stations in low merit order at extra cost. That is a bonus for the coal industry, and one of the factors in the higher demands being made on it. But this will not last. As soon as the station difficulties have been overcome and the high merit order stations come on stream, that bonus to the industry will go.
What is wrong is the deliberate conversion from coal to an alternative fuel which results in a permanent loss to the industry. I hope that the Minister will bear this in mind with regard to the stations now being considered.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Mason: We must recognise that the miner has been caught up in a comparative wages war. Unfortunately, the coal industry has slipped very much behind and is desperately fighting to regain its status. If we want coal at all, we must be prepared to pay for it. In the end, that will be the cheapest thing to do. An agreed wage increase now will raise morale, aid recruitment and add impetus to the productivity drive which is necessary to maintain the coal markets and give life to our coal industry. If the official strike call had been given, other trade unions would quickly have followed suit. Some had already promised support. Others wanted to erase the blemish of their hasty withdrawal from the 1926 General Strike. If it had gone so far the economic consequences would have been disastrous. I hope that it never comes to that.
I am sorry that time is running out for me. Because of the recently created atmosphere, a climate which is encouraging runaway prices, in turn creating a wage demand spiral; because of the concern over power station conversions; because there has been no sympathetic reply on reconstruction of the N.C.B. finances, particularly relating to p.d.c.; because all this means that the miner will remain unsettled; because the industry will not have stability and peace; and because there are already emerging distinct changes of policy which are bound to affect the morale of the miners, we are taking this early

opportunity to register our concern about the future of the coal industry and sincerely hope that these early warnings will evoke a more sympathetic response from the Government before it is too late.

9.35 p.m.

The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): There is always a certain thrill in the atmosphere during a coal industry debate and this one has been no exception. It has been marked, as the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has said, by two notable maiden speeches by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Alexander Wilson) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who both spoke with great feeling and great knowledge. Indeed, they spoke with such enviable fluency that at one time I had to question whether we were hearing a maiden speech and I got up to check it. I found that it was indeed a maiden speech and I think that it was quite remarkable. I wish I could come near the fluency they both displayed.
Coal is the most astonishing product. Lying deep down, buried in the ground, is this extraordinary thing which can generate such tremendous passion. We have heard many moving speeches today—and that again is not unique in a coal industry debate. I would like to single out two—those of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). These, and other hon. Members, were joined by their concern for the well being of the people who work in the mining industry. I do not think that anyone here during the debate could fail to be swayed by much of the eloquence we have heard, although one is able to differentiate between those who genuinely felt what they were saying and those who were saying it for the sake of saying it.
Eloquence is noteworthy whenever it happens, even when, as in the case of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), it has so little to do with the subject being debated. I say to him that if his speech had been as well informed as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), and as balanced as that of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts), then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack)


said, he would have done his friends a greater service.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley came very close to the bounds of complete irresponsibility. In my wanderings around the country, I have already detected a certain reluctance on the part of miners to regard him as their champion. I must admit that, if he was actively goading them on to unofficial strikes, he was going out of his way to invite them to do their industry great damage, and for someone who has been Minister of Power to make a speech like that was disgraceful. He has not much of a reputation with the Chairman of the National Coal Board. I do not know whether this is due entirely to his actions when he was Minister. He has referred to some of the actions so far taken by the Government. During the tenure of office of the Labour Government there was a considerable number of power station conversions—for example, Brunswick Wharf, Little-brook "B", Portishead, Fulham, and Hams Hall "C"—and one thing we shall never forget about his term of office was the decision on the nuclear power station at Hartlepool.
When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Power he had not only the responsibility but the courage to face the facts, and he took decisions in the light of those facts. I am certain that some of the decisions he took were extremely difficult for him to have taken, but he knew what the situation was then and he knows what the situation is today. The facts are quite clear and, no matter how much we may long for them to be different, we, too, must face the facts as they are. Unless we do we may not help the industry for long, and we will certainly run the risk of misleading the men who work in it. We could precipitate undesirable and costly distortions in the pattern of energy demand.
The fact is that there has been this dramatic turnabout. My hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) pointed this out very clearly and emphasised how in a short span of time the industry had moved from surplus to shortage, from stocks of 28 million tons two years ago to 9 million tons today. As my right hon. Friend said, this is a worrying fact. It is a fact

which is worrying the C.E.G.B., for most coal goes to power stations.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, 75 per cent. of power stations are coal fired. This is a very significant figure. The electricity industry's difficulties, which are partly responsible for the situation of higher coal demand than had been anticipated, are likely to sustain the situation for a while yet to come.
The Magnox stations are still in a certain amount of technical difficulty. The large generating sets had their initial teething troubles and there have been a series of plant commissioning delays. But at the same time other factors have come into the situation. Steel output has been extremely buoyant, and this has meant that demand by coke ovens rose in 1969 and is still rising this year.
At the same time as we have had this rising demand for coal for a whole variety of reasons, we have also had a position in which coal supply has fallen below expectations. A number of hon. Members referred to the productivity figures and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) sought to correct the record with some of his statistics. I have tried to find out what the exact position is, because a number of figures have been used during the course of the debate.
My right hon. Friend referred to a 2·2 per cent. increase in 1969–70 and 2·8 per cent. increase in the current year. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) referred to a figure of 4 per cent. That figure—I do not know whether he made it clear, but if he did I missed it—relates to the calendar year of 1969. The National Coal Board Report for 1969–70 shows that output per man shift in that year averaged 43·4 cwt., an increase of 2·1 per cent. over 1968–69.
The indisputable fact which the House should have in mind is that the increase of productivity has fallen substantially from the high point of 9 per cent. achieved in 1968–69 and is also significantly below the average annual increase, which was 4¾ per cent., achieved over the last ten years. That puts it more into perspective. It clearly follows that if only we can get back a little more to the 4¾ per cent. figure the supply-demand situation will be much more in balance.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Gentleman has been lecturing the House about figures. Would he compare the productivity figure in the coal industry over the past 10 years with that in private sector industry generally?

Sir J. Eden: The productivity figures in private sector industry generally do not help the position as it affects the coal industry. The hon. Gentleman must face the facts, and they are simply that over a period of 10 years the average productivity increase was 4¾ per cent. This is a great increase, it is a good figure, but I am saying that the increase figure is less this year and last year than it was for the average years. If we could get back to the average figures then the position in the industry would be transformed.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is true, and I mentioned it in my remarks, that for many reasons the figure of productivity in the industry last year was less than the previous year. I was arguing that even so it was better than in the private sector, and that is why the Coal Board and the miners are not prepared to have lectures from the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend about putting private enterprise methods of comparison and operation into the nationalised industry.

Sir J. Eden: I do not think the miners will listen to lectures from anyone. They have no reason to do so. They will certainly not be impressed by the rabble-rousing speeches of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it was wholly unrealistic of the then Minister of Technology on 9th April to project figures forward for the 1970s based on a 9 per cent. increase in productivity every year? That was the point I was making.

Sir J. Eden: I agree with my hon. Friend, it was unrealistic. What all hon. Members should realise is that that was the year in which a record number of pits were closed. Those are the facts which have led to the present difficulties. It is for this reason that the prospect for this winter is not particularly good. As my right hon. Friend said, it is nothing like as good as any of us would wish. It is this which has led to local shortages in solid smokeless fuel, about which some hon. Members will be asking questions in the course of this winter. I am afraid

that this is bound to happen. It cannot now be stopped.
We took a number of immediate measures. The moment we came into power we looked at the solid smokeless fuel position and took action to try to rescue the situation. I can tell the House that half a million tons have been saved from publicly-owned buildings and the subsidy for gas coke production has already been introduced for this year only. There are other conditions which we had to take into account. There is the fact that the previous Government took the decision to import about 75,000 tons of briquettes manufactured in France. If there were other imports available we would wish to try to bring them in too, because this will certainly ease some of the local shortages. It is the fact, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) said when he was in the Ministry of Technology, that we have a problem on our hands with coking coal and there may be certain grades here which will have to be imported to try to keep the position and maintain the market for coal. This is something into which both the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are looking.
We must consider all these possibilities. We are bound to take account of the present supply-demand relationship when applications for conversion of power stations come to us from the Central Electricity Generating Board. I accept the views which have been expressed to me very forcefully by individual Members and by the National Union of Mineworkers. I have undertaken to do my best to consult the union as well as hon. Members, and I mean to do that. But it will not be easy in present circumstances and I hope that I will not be guilty of deceiving hon. Members. We must take account of the situation as it is. If it is possible to go for dual firing, this will be done. The best thing to do is to go for what I call genuine dual firing, which is particularly appropriate with gas.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Mr. Edwin Wainwright rose—

Sir J. Eden: I am sorry, but I have to sit down early because of the procedural arrangements.
The situation in the industry has been described by the right hon. Member for Barnsley and others as serious. It is serious. But I do not think it is anything like as serious as it has been made out. It is certainly not disastrous. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale very fairly asked why the situation is as bad as it is in an industry which in recent years has had remarkably good employer-employee industrial relations. The mood of the men seems to have gone sour. The hon. Gentleman advanced his views on the reasons for this. He may be right. I am not qualified to judge. It is an extremely difficult matter on which to comment. The situation which the industry now faces seems to be one of difficulty in meeting the demand and of falling profitability. Nobody likes to work in an industry where the prospects for the future as related to its performance do not appear to be very secure.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley asked about public dividend capital. As he said, I told him that I thought it would be inappropriate to introduce this form of so-called equity into this industry. I believe that that is so. There need to be two tests. It is a question, not whether this is a cyclical industry, but whether it is a viable industry. The coal industry has an accumulated deficit which in 1969 was £8·2 million and which now stands at £34·5 million—an increase of £26 million. We must try to get the situation in balance, and this is one of the factors which undoubtedly influenced the Coal Board in its wage offer and which undoubtedly influenced my right hon. Friend in accepting that there is no alternative but to put up coal prices yet again.
As I have said, the situation is serious but not disastrous. It does no service to the industry to exaggerate the position. There is a substantial future ahead of it. For this reason, we have not reduced the Coal Board's investment programme. That is exemplified by the fact that in 1975 coal-fired capacity will have been substantially increased and will still account for over 65 per cent. of total capacity.
These do not justify the calls for protection which we have had from the benches opposite today. We recognise full well that in Government for the time being we have an obligation to those who work in the industry. We shall discharge this obligation through the means of the Coal Bill the full details of which will be apparent to hon. Members as soon as it is published. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as it is ready.
Hon. Members would do well to have in mind tonight the words of the Chairman of the National Coal Board when he summarised the position as he saw it in these words:
The long-term future of this industry lies not with Governments, nor people outside. The future of coal lies firmly in the hands of our men and management today. We have the coal. We have the pits. We have the machines. We have the men.
Those are his words. They are words that we would echo in the House today, and the future of the industry is in the hands of the men to whom he was referring.

Mr. Keith Speed: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES 1971–72 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £4,835,616,500, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the Civil Departments as set out in House of Commons Paper 143 for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1972.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move, That Class IV, Vote 1, be reduced by £5.
It ought to be more, but I gather that I am hampered by the Procedure Committee.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 306.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard


Albu, Austen
Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David


Alldritt, Walter
Eadie, Alex
Lamond, James


Allen, Scholefield
Edelman, Maurice
Latham, Arthur


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Leadbitter, Ted


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, Tom
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Ashton, Joe
English, Michael
Leonard, Dick


Atkinson, Norman
Evans, Fred
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Faulds, Andrew
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Barnett, Joel
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, L'wood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Baxter, William
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lomas, Kenneth


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loughlin, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Foley, Maurice
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bishop, E. S.
Foot, Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ford, Ben
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John
McBride, Neil


Booth, Albert
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McCann, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
McCartney, Hugh


Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Galpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James


Bradley, Tom
Garrett, W. E.
McElhone, Frank


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gilbert, Dr. John
McGuire, Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackie, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grant, John D. (Islington, East)
Mackintosh, John P.


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McNamara, J. Kevin


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Campbell, Ian (Dunbartonshire, West)
Hamling, William
Marks, Kenneth


Cant, R. B.
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Marquand, David


Carmichael, Neil
Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Exeter)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Hattersley, Roy
Mendelson, John


Cocks, Michael
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mikardo, Ian


Cohen, Stanley
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Bruce


Coleman, Donald
Hilton, W. S.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Concannon, J. D.
Horam, John
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Eiystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Huckfield, Leslie
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, Central)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)


Cronin, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)
Moyle, Roland


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hunter, Adam
Murray, Hn. Ronald King


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Eir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
O'Malley, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Oram, Bert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Orme, Stanley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, Central)
John, Brynmor
Oswald, Thomas


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Padley, Walter


Delargy, H. J.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)
Paget, R. T.


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jones, Barry (Flint, East)
Palmer, Arthur


Dempsey, James
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Doig, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parry, Robert (L'pool, Exchange)


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Pavitt, Laurie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Judd, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Driberg, Tom
Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom




Pentland, Norman
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Tuck, Raphael


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Urwin, T. W.


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Sillars, James
Varley, Eric G.


Prescott, John
Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Skinner, Dennis
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Probert, Arthur
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)
Wallace, George


Rankin, John
Spearing, Nigel
Watkins, David


Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weitzman, David


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Stallard, A. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Richard, Ivor
Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Strang, Gavin
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Roper, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Rose, Paul B.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Woof, Robert


Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George (Dundee, E.)



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Tinn, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Tomney, Frank
Mr. Alan Fitch and


Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'Ie on Tyne)
Torney, Tom
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Costain, A. P.
Hannam, John (Exeter)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Critchley, Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Crouch, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Crowder, F. P.
Haselhurst, Alan


Astor, John
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hastings, Stephen


Atkins, Humphrey
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Havers, Michael


Awdrey, Daniel
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hawkins, Paul


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mal.-Gen. Jack
Hay, John


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dean, Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Heseltine, Michael


Batsford, Brian
Dixon, Piers
Hicks, Robert


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Higgins, Terence L.


Bell, Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hiley, Joseph


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)


Benyon, W.
Dykes, Hugh
Holland, Philip


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eden, Sir John
Holt, Miss Mary


Biffen, John
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hordern, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Blaker, Peter
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N).
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Emery, Peter
Howe, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Farr, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)


Boscawen, Hn. R. T.
Fell, Anthony
Hunt, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Bowden, Andrew
Fidler, Michael
Iremonger, T. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
James, David


Bray, Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Brewis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fortescue, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fowler, Norman
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fox, J. Marcus
Jopling, Michael


Bryan, Paul
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ford &amp; Stone)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith



Fry, Peter
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G.
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward
Kerby, Capt. Henry


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gibson-Watt, David
Kershaw, Anthony


Burden, F. A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Kilfedder, James


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Kimball, Marcus


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Dr. Alan
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Carlisle, Mark
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Kinsey, Joseph


Cary, Sir Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Kirk, Peter


Channon, Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Kitson, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Gower, Raymond
Knox, David


Chichester-Clark, R.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Lambton, Antony


Churchill, W. S.
Gray, Hamish
Lane, David


Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Green, Alan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Clegg, Walter
Grieve, Percy
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Cockeram, Eric
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Cooke, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Coombs, Derek
Grylls, Michael
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)


Cooper, A. E.
Gummer, Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Corfield, F. V.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Longden, Gilbert


Cormack, Patrick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Loveridge, John







McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


MacArthur, Ian
Pink, R. Bonner
Stokes, John


McCrindle, R. A.
Pounder, Rafton
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


McLaren, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Sutcliffe, John


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tapsell, Peter


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


McNair-Wilson, Michael (W'stow, E.)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Maddan, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Tebbit, Norman


Madel, David
Raison, Timothy
Temple, John M.


Maginnis, John E.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Marten, Neil
Redmond, Robert
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Mather, Carol
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Maude, Angus
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Tilney, John


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Mawby, Ray
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Trew, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tugendhat, Christopher


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ridsdale, Julian
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Waddington, David


Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Moate, Roger
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Molynoaux, James
Rost, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Money, Ernle D.
Royle, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Monks, Mrs. Connie
Russell, Sir Ronald
Walters, Dennis


Monro, Hector
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Montgomery, Fergus
Scott, Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Scott-Hopkins, James
Weatherill, Bernard


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sharples, Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mudd, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Murton, Oscar
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Simeons, Charles
Wilkinson, John


Neave, Airey
Sinclair, Sir George
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Normanton, Tom
Soref, Harold
Woodnutt, Mark


Nott, John
Speed, Keith
Worsley, Marcus


Onslow, Cranley
Spence, John
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Sproat, Iain



Page, Graham (Crosby)
Stainton, Keith
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Peel, John
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Mr. Jasper More.


Percival, Ian
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)





Original Question again proposed.


It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — RIVER TRENT (POLLUTION)

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]

10.12 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: At the outset of this debate on the pollution of the River Trent, I want to make two points abundantly clear. The first is that this debate has nothing whatever to do with the strike of public employees, because I tabled an application for this debate before that strike took place. Secondly, I would like to dispel from anybody's mind—I especially direct this remark to those who like Burton beer—that this debate has nothing to do with Burton beer. The water from which Burton beer is brewed comes not from the River Trent itself but from the artesian wells fathoms below the River Trent near the gypsum beds.
Having given that commercial, I turn to the serious problem of pollution in the Trent itself. This is a long-term problem—long-term past and long-term future. About 10 years ago I vigorously campaigned in this House time and again for the purification of the River Trent. The Trent River Board, as it was then known, the Trent River Authority, as it now is, did marvels. After a number of years the Trent improved and we were even able to see some fish in the river at Burton. But, unfortunately, in the last two years this situation has rapidly deteriorated.
Why is this so? It is due peculiarly to the position of Burton on the River Trent. It is situated eight miles from where the River Tame joins the Trent. Because of this, the Trent at Burton is severely polluted. The chief causes are twofold. The first is the river Tame, which is probably the filthiest river in the United Kingdom, and, when one thinks of pollution in other rivers, that is saying something. The other pollution comes from the headwaters of the Trent in the Potteries, but this is largely improved by the time that the Trent reaches the confluence of the Tame and the Trent.
The problem to which I am directing the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment

is really that of the River Tame. It is a river which flows through countryside, the Birmingham conurbation and the Black Country, and it is the worst of the two sources of pollution. The quality of effluent put into the River Tame is highly unsatisfactory, and it is this effluent, about which I shall say more later, that is almost entirely responsible for the filthy Trent, which once upon a time was called "the silver Trent" but which is now nothing more than an open drain.
On 25th September, the Daily Telegraph's magazine described the Trent as the worst river in Europe, with the exception of the Rhine. The fact is that human excrement and toxic industrial waste together add up to make the Trent the filthiest river in Britain and the second filthiest in Europe. It is no credit to anyone.
How does it affect Burton-on-Trent? Burton is in the peculiar position that it receives the full force of the pollution from the Tame, which carries it from the Black Country and Birmingham. It was said once that Burton sent its effluent, especially its beer effluent, into the Trent and that that was the cause of some of the trouble. We have now put our house in order. We have a completely modern sewerage scheme. But it does not help us, because we put our clean effluent into the Trent below Burton. Having put our house in order, we ask other authorities to do the same.
We have no river amenities in Burton. The riverside areas cry out for amenity development. There are no fish. Nothing lives in the Trent at Burton. No living organism can survive. Instead, we have flowing past us a deadly, dirty cesspool of messy putrefaction and grossly polluted effluent.
Any improvement at Burton depends entirely on an improvement in the Tame, and the next question to which I want to address myself concerns whose responsibility it is. I have already paid tribute to the River Trent Authority. It is fully aware of the problem in the area and, to my knowledge, is doing everything possible to alleviate it. I attach no blame to the authority; indeed, I take off my hat to it for its efforts.
What must be done is to involve the local authorities, industry, the Upper


Tame Main Drainage Authority and, lastly, the Government. This is where I have to make some stern comments to my hon. Friend, since his Department has the ultimate responsibility.
I want to set my hon. Friend three targets, and I expect some action. The Upper Tame Drainage Authority must see clearly that the load of pollution from the 17 sewage stations or works in the Black Country is reduced considerably. For the most part, they are sewage works which, in an area like the Birmingham conurbation or the Black Country, are totally inadequate to take the load. The authorities must be encouraged, cajoled, financed, persuaded, or whatever other methods the Department for the Environment cares to use—[Interruption.] I did not catch that. It was too much of a whisper.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Sack them.

Mr. Jennings: No, I do not think so. The Government are doing good work at the moment. I will not enter into those controversial waters. The waters of the Trent are controversial enough for me tonight.
This must be the Minister's first target. I will give his this fact. I can give him any amount of statistics. About 40 per cent. of the total sewage load comes from these 17 sewage works, which are totally inadequate for their work.
As a result of agitation years ago, we got new sewage works at Minworth in the Black Country. These are completely modern, but they are only adequate in good times. The other 17 are not adequate. In this area, local authorities must face their responsibilities. The remedial measures that have taken place, or not taken place, in the last few years in this area have shown no degree of urgency.
This vicious, vile, dirty, filthy, River Tame has no chance of recovering before it reaches the Trent. It pours its filthy waters down past Burton, and the effect is felt in Nottingham, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will probably testify. The quantity of effluent is so large and the quality so poor, and the Tame pours 200 million gallons a day into the Trent. One would think that the Trent would be the bigger river of the two; but in

volume of water, if that is what it can be called, the Tame has a greater volume of water than the main river. This is the extent of the problem. We see a sorry picture of neglect over a long period.
A scheme for the centralising of sewage works in the Black Country, apart from Minworth, was banned by the previous Government in June. I give my hon. Friend his second target. Revive this scheme, finance it, and see that we have something that will at least help over the years to ameliorate this problem.
What else can the Minister do? He can come and see for himself. I have been down the Tame and the Trent from the source of the Tame to the Humber. The Tame has to be seen to be believed. If the Minister cannot find time to come and see Burton and the Tame—and see how our beer really is made—will he receive a delegation from the corporation so that they can tell him about matters that I have not time to tell him tonight? I want the Minister to see and to learn what is possible if the River Trent were clean—the amenities that we could have in a delightful little place like Burton. I think that he should insist on improvements in sewage treatment in Birmingham and the Black Country. It needs his time, energy and planning, and some Government money.
I have here a report—I will not bore the House with it—from the Trent River Authority which says that the sewerage systems in the Black Country,
… are inadequate to pass peak flows of sewage even in dry weather conditions. The result of these inadequacies and defects is that frequent or continuous discharges of crude sewage are made from overflow points on the sewerage system and find their way into water courses.
That is the picture.
What are the Government's plans for all this? I should like to hear from my hon. Friend about short-term and long-term plans. I have no intention of being put off by vague promises or specious words. This is a repetition of the campaign that some of us fought ten years ago. I tell my hon. Friend, with a warm smile in my heart and no malice aforethought, that, unless I get a definite promise of some action and, within a reasonable time, see that action is being taken, this campaign will continue to be waged. This is not just a local problem. It affects five and a half million people


living in the Trent basin, and I urge the Minister to treat this as a matter of extreme urgency and give it top priority.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to support what was said by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), but I must be brief because I know that the Minister wants time to reply to the debate.
The anger which the hon. Gentleman has expressed about the pollution of the Trent near Burton is justified and understandable, for here is a town which has a modern sewage system but yet does not benefit from that system because of the gross neglect of others upstream of Burton. In June I had the opportunity, with the Trent River Board, to inspect some of the areas for which the board is responsible, and I learned of the way in which the state of affairs around Burton is caused. It is due to the ever-increasing quantities of sewage and industrial effluent which are discharged to the upper and middle reaches of the Tame in the way which the hon. Gentleman has described.
I find it difficult to believe that although the state of affairs near Burton is bad it is nevertheless better than it was five or 10 years ago. I find that difficult to understand, because I saw the gross pollution of the Tame, and at one spot, if I had not seen it with my own eyes, I would not have thought it possible in this day and age that a natural water course could be allowed to become so horribly and disgustingly polluted by untreated sewage. About 100 yards from that spot were dwelling houses, and I do not understand why the people in those houses are not clamouring night and day for rectification of those conditions.
The sewage treatment facilities over much of the Black Country area present a sorry picture of many years of neglect. Many of the sewage systems date back to Victorian times, and these are totally inadequate for present populations. We could debate this matter at great length, and I should love to do that, but there is not time because the Minister wants to reply to the debate. I believe that

we must look at this problem to see what new policies and new powers are necessary to cope with it. I hope that the Minister, in the short time that he has been in his present office, has had time to look at the problem and will be able to give us some hope for the near future.

10.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I can understand the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) have voiced on behalf of their constituents in respect of the Trent and Tame rivers. In particular, I can understand the concern which my hon. Friend has expressed on behalf of Burton, which has embarked on a new sewage disposal scheme costing about £4 million to deal with its own sewage disposal wastes, only to find that others have not so far been able to follow suit. As a result, Burton is naturally concerned that its own efforts should not be negatived, and it wants other authorities to follow its good example.
I think that in this matter of river pollution it is desirable to look at the picture as a whole and this is something that I want briefly to do tonight.
The Trent itself is a clean river until it receives the discharges from the Potteries, and it is these which grossly pollute it with industrial and some other unsatisfactory effluents. But such is the capacity of rivers for self-purification that the Trent recovers sufficiently to support fish life for 17 miles above its confluence with the river Tame, which is eight miles upstream from Burton.
It is at this point at the confluence when things get worse. The average flow of the Tame at this point is greater than that of the Trent, and the Tame, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is an extremely dirty river and the major source of Burton's understandable discontent. The Tame is the main drainage channel for nearly the whole of Birmingham and the Black Country, and it is heavily polluted throughout its length. There are discharges of unsatisfactory sewage effluent and partially settled sewage. There are premature discharges from sewage overflows and, in addition, there are a number of effluents from metal finishing and other industries which inhibit the river's self-purification processes. I make no bones


about that. But I would say to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Gentleman opposite that, if they have any specific evidence of danger to health, this evidence is not known to my Department, and they should produce it.
The picture which I have presented so far is gloomy, but we must put on record that, alongside the gloom, there is progress to report. I shall deal, first, with progress on the part of the Trent before it is joined by the Tame. At Stoke-on-Trent the corporation is building a new £1½ million sewage disposal works. Nearby, the British Steel Corporation has installed a treatment plant which has reduced the cyanide and zinc content of its effluent by not less than 90 per cent., and it is also investigating the installation of a further treatment plant to bring its effluent fully up to the Trent River Authority's requirements. I am glad to say, too, that the Michelin Tyre Company is likewise putting in treatment plant. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that these improvements in that area will help his problem.
I wish to note as well that the problem on the Tame itself lies, as has been said, with the Upper Tame Main Drainage Authority, which is the responsible body for the main drainage of Birmingham and the surrounding areas. When this drainage authority was set up in 1966—this fact cannot be burked—it took over a large number of very old and unsatisfactory treatment works in the Black Country. It took over, also, the centralised sewage treatment works at Minworth. Here, I think, there is sign of genuine improvement as the Minworth Works comes into operation. The final stages of these works, that is, the oxygenation tanks and associated works, are now under construction, and I can tell my hon. Friend that, when these works are fully operational in about a year's time, he will, I believe, find that there is a worthwhile improvement. Incidentally, these works will cost £20 million, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that they are designed fully to reach the Royal Commission standards.
The Upper Tame Main Drainage Authority's biggest problem for the immediate future is to deal with the old and unsatisfactory works in the Black

Country which were there before it took over in 1966. To this end, as my hon. Friend said, the drainage authority applied for planning permission to build a new treatment works in the Sandwell valley between Birmingham and West Bromwich. That application was called in and, as he said, the then Minister decided not to grant planning permission. This decision was taken on amenity grounds and because the inspectors who conducted the public local inquiry came to the conclusion that a refusal of permission to build would not materially delay the coming into operation of a proper sewage treatment facility. I am glad to say that the drainage authority is now working hard on an alternative scheme based on the reconstruction of three or four major existing works in the area. This big job can be expected to be fully operational certainly by the end of the 1970s, and it will start to come into operation in phases before then. It will cost, I am told, an estimated £23 million. So, once again, there is a measure of progress.
Meanwhile, the authority is carrying out a number of interim measures. Since its inception, this authority has spent £12 million on capital works, and expenditure is planned to continue at a rate of not less than £3½ million a year for every one of the next five years. Again, I think, we can report a measure of progress.
Tamworth is spending £1½ million on new sewage disposal works, and over the river basin as a whole other major schemes are being carried out or are planned by Cannock and Leek Urban District Councils, by Stafford Rural District Council and by other authorities.
The effect of these various measures is that, progressively, there is an improvement in the quality of the River Tame. Even with the completion of the Min-worth Works, however, I accept that the position will remain unsatisfactory; there is still a long way to go. The fact remains that there is an improvement, and that improvement will go on.
The essential ingredients for success in this very large effort are threefold. First, there is the requirement that the


authorities concerned shall be determined to get on with the job. My hon. Friend made that point, and I shall be surprised if the local authorities do not notice what he has said tonight. I am confident that those concerned in this river basin are aware of the gravity of the problem and the responsibility which rests with them.
The second ingredient is money. There have been no restrictions on local authorities' capital investment programmes in sewerage and sewage disposal. Expenditure has been rising steadily and I expect this to continue.
The third ingredient is time. De-polluting rivers is necessarily a slow and laborious process, and the task in the Trent basin is literally to overtake the results of 150 years of development. The designing and building of major new sewage treatment works is a long and complicated business.
None of this is to say that we are satisfied. The Government do not think that there are any grounds for complacency here, neither in this particular aspect of environmental pollution nor with regard to the improvement of the environment as a whole. The setting up of a new Department of the Environment under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a clear indication of that.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Government are taking a close interest in this situation in the Trent, and that my remarks will help him and his constituents in Burton to see how they fit into the larger picture of improvement of the Trent and Tame rivers as a whole. If he wishes to bring a deputation on this matter, we shall be very glad to receive it.
I turn finally to two specific points in respect of Burton. There has been a certain amount of complaint about smells from Burton on Trent's own sewage disposal works. It is well-known that brewery wastes are strong and difficult to treat, and that they account for about 70 per cent. of the total dry weather flow to the Burton works. I am pleased to note that the new sewage disposal works is producing a satisfactory

effluent. One of the Ministry's engineering inspectors visited Burton last year to investigate the situation following the complaints. The inspector was not able precisely to identify their origin, but he did report that the smells were not typical of those normally found in the vicinity of sewage disposal works, and that they might more accurately be associated with industrial chemical processes. He was satisfied that the new Burton works had been satisfactorily constructed, and that the Council are taking all possible steps to eliminate any possible cause of the smells.
I add one word about the long-term plans for the Trent, which my hon. Friend wished to know. We look forward to going beyond the stage when the task is simply to clean it up. That is the first task, but beyond that one recognises that the Trent is a major carrier of water from the west to the east of the country. Generally there is plenty of water in the west and there is less of it in the east. The Trent is therefore a valuable supplier and carrier of water. It is necessary to utilise this major resource. That is why for the past three years my Department, the Water Resources Board, the Water Pollution Research Laboratory and the Trent River Authority have been actively engaged in a substantial research study to determine the best way to make the Trent fit for various uses—for water carriage and for many other things. This study involves conducting experiments into the artificial recharge of aquifers, and the building of lagoons along the river. In the end we hope that it will produce an appreciation of the most economical way to fit the river for wider uses, which can include recreation and water supply. This report will be ready early next year. It will form the basis for the future systematic development of the water resources of the Trent as a whole.
My hon. Friend, not for the first time, has done his constituents and the House a service in raising this matter. I assure him that the Government are in no way complacent about the situation. I will accept his invitation, if it is at all possible to do so, to come and look at the Trent, though I must tell him that when I was there the other day I was very glad to be able to see a fisherman with his rod pull out a fish from the Trent river.

Mr. Jennings: At Nottingham—not Burton.

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, indeed. I hope that one day my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to meet together to enjoy some of their admirable Burton

beer and to take fresh fish out of the River Tame.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.